This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: question regarding regrename and failure of 950704-1.c on main
- From: law at redhat dot com
- To: "John David Anglin" <dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca>
- Cc: rth at redhat dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 16:43:47 -0600
- Subject: Re: question regarding regrename and failure of 950704-1.c on main
- Reply-to: law at redhat dot com
In message <200205092222.g49MMkrC016094@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca>, "John David Anglin
> > True, but if you look you'll find that they're packed in the wrong manner
> > as register arguments (ie the order for passing them in registers is not
> > the order in which we want to use them elsewhere). They get copied out an
> > repacked into proper order immediately after the prologue.
> The Runtime Architecture document indicates that 64-bit integers are
> passed with the high order word in an odd arg word (ie., arg1 == %r25 or
> arg3 == %r23). Thus, it would appear that special packing is not necessary.
> The return value has the high order word in ret0 == %r28.
Maybe I had it backwards. Arguments OK, reurn values reversed?