On 4/3/26 9:09 AM, David Faust wrote:
BUT, I am confused. This test passes on my system compiled with
gcc trunk. After the call, we emit a movs32 when moving the return value
to a different register, which is enough for the verifier to know the
value is restricted to signed integer range.
Are you seeing this with trunk or with the PROMOTE_MODE or some other
change applied?
Yeah it's specifically with PROMOTE_MODE part of the ABI change, w/o
touching target hooks.
I see.
At this point it seems clear that there is no correctness issue with the
moves currently generated by gcc trunk.
Rather, the question is about the verifiability of the resulting code.
But verifier issues raised here also do not reproduce with gcc trunk.
Can you please send a reduced example showing precisely what code is
being rejected by the verifier (despite being semantically correct)
_as generated by gcc trunk_ ?
If these issues only appear with a patched gcc, then this patch to
address those issues should be part of a patchset including all other
changes which would necessitate this fix.
Yeah that's what I concluded as well on this thread and IRC.
You are introducing a lot of confusion by sending a patch against
issues that do not seem to exist in trunk.
Yep.
-Vineet
