On 2/27/2026 4:42 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Sat, Feb 28, 2026 at 7:32 AM Jeffrey Law
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/25/2026 5:52 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 8:39 AM H.J. Lu <[email protected]> wrote:
TARGET_PROMOTE_PROTOTYPES is an optimization, not an ABI requirement.
TARGET_PROMOTE_FUNCTION_MODE should be used for ABI requirement. Like
xtensa, mcore ABI requires sign extension of signed 8/16-bit integer
arguments to 32 bits and zero extension of unsigned integer 8/16-bit
arguments to 32 bits:
1. Rename xtensa_promote_function_mode to
default_promote_function_mode_sign_extend to sign-extend signed 8/16-bit
integer arguments to 32 bits and zero-extend of unsigned 8/16-bit
integer arguments to 32 bits.
2. Replace xtensa_promote_function_mode with
default_promote_function_mode_sign_extend.
3. Remove TARGET_PROMOTE_PROTOTYPES for mcore and define
TARGET_PROMOTE_FUNCTION_MODE with
default_promote_function_mode_sign_extend to properly extend 8/16-bit
arguments to 32 bits.
Targets with the same ABI requirement should define
TARGET_PROMOTE_FUNCTION_MODE with
default_promote_function_mode_sign_extend.
gcc/
PR target/119979
PR target/120888
* targhooks.cc (default_promote_function_mode_sign_extend): New.
* targhooks.h (default_promote_function_mode_sign_extend):
Likewise.
* config/mcore/mcore.cc (TARGET_PROMOTE_FUNCTION_MODE): Use
default_promote_function_mode_sign_extend.
(TARGET_PROMOTE_PROTOTYPES): Removed.
* config/xtensa/xtensa.cc (xtensa_promote_function_mode): Removed.
(TARGET_PROMOTE_FUNCTION_MODE): Use
default_promote_function_mode_sign_extend.
gcc/testsuite/
PR target/119979
PR target/120888
* gcc.target/xtensa/pr120888-1.c: Removed to ...
* gcc.dg/zero-extend.c: This. Enable for mcore and xtensa.
* gcc.target/xtensa/pr120888-2.c: Removed to ...
* gcc.dg/sign-extend.c: This. Enable for mcore and xtensa.
--
H.J.
Add the missing patch.
Note you broke mcore-elf in new and interesting ways.
Tests that now fail, but worked before (2 tests):
mcore-sim: gcc: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr84436-5.c execution test
mcore-sim: gcc: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr84436-5.c execution test
How does it fail?
So what is the final resolution on the mcore failures? I believe:
1. You have a patch which fixes that regression.
2. There is a larger question about the correctness of the
PROMOTE_MODE (pr124467)
Given we're just a few weeks away from a release, I would not be
inclined to change PROMOTE_MODE. So can you please do the right thing
WRT your patch for the pr84436-5 regression?
And you broke iq2000-elf: Tests that now fail, but worked before (99 tests):
iq2000-sim: gcc: c-c++-common/pr111309-1.c -Wc++-compat execution test
[ ... ]
This patch doesn't change iq2000.
I had a patch (from you I believe) which fixed an earlier set of iq2000
regressions from your original promotion patch. That changed
TARGET_PROMOTE_FUNCTION_MODE from
default_promote_function_mode_always_promote to
default_promote_function_mode. That patch was never submitted AFAICT
and thus you left iq2000 regressed and it was so long ago that we've
totally lost state on whatever tests were failing that caused you to
send me that patch.
The right thing to do here would be for you go go all the way back to
the point before you integrated those promotion changes, get a build &
test of the iq2000 port, apply your promotion patch, see what breaks and
fix it. You'd need to make sure you've got the simulator in place,
newlib built, dejagnu baseboard file to enable execution testing, etc to
get real results.
The overall point being you broke things in the ABI space for a couple
ports, but haven't really been proactive on getting them fixed and thus
here we are 11 months later with two ports still showing correctness
problems due to your patch. I acked your original patch on the
assumption that you would handle any fallout. I'm not likely to do that
again for target independent work, particularly in the ABI space.
Jeff
