On 26/07/16 14:55, James Greenhalgh wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> It looks like we've not been handling structures of 16-bit floating-point
> data correctly for AArch64. For some reason we end up passing them
> packed in to integer registers. That is to say, on trunk and GCC 6, for:
>
> struct x {
>
On 05/08/16 15:17, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 11:15:24AM +0100, James Greenhalgh wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 11:00:39AM +0100, Yao Qi wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 2:55 PM, James Greenhalgh
>>> wrote:
OK? As this is an ABI break, I'm not proposing for it
On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 11:15:24AM +0100, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 11:00:39AM +0100, Yao Qi wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 2:55 PM, James Greenhalgh
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > OK? As this is an ABI break, I'm not proposing for it to go back to GCC 6,
> > > though it will a
On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 11:00:39AM +0100, Yao Qi wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 2:55 PM, James Greenhalgh
> wrote:
> >
> > OK? As this is an ABI break, I'm not proposing for it to go back to GCC 6,
> > though it will apply cleanly there if the maintainers support that.
> >
>
> What do you mean
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 2:55 PM, James Greenhalgh
wrote:
>
> OK? As this is an ABI break, I'm not proposing for it to go back to GCC 6,
> though it will apply cleanly there if the maintainers support that.
>
What do you mean by "ABI break"? AFAICS, with this patch, it conforms to
AAPCS.
The sub
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 02:55:02PM +0100, James Greenhalgh wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> It looks like we've not been handling structures of 16-bit floating-point
> data correctly for AArch64. For some reason we end up passing them
> packed in to integer registers. That is to say, on trunk and GCC 6, for:
>
