This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] - Use of powerpc 64bit instructions in 32bit ABI
- From: "David S. Miller" <davem at redhat dot com>
- To: Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple dot com>
- Cc: dje at watson dot ibm dot com, dalej at apple dot com, rth at redhat dot com, Ulrich dot Weigand at de dot ibm dot com, fjahanian at apple dot com, ian at wasabisystems dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 19:49:27 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] - Use of powerpc 64bit instructions in 32bit ABI
- References: <200310241827.h9OIRWg26036@makai.watson.ibm.com><20DECE1C-0657-11D8-B0DC-000393D76DAA@apple.com>
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 12:20:29 -0700
Dale Johannesen <dalej@apple.com> wrote:
> On Friday, October 24, 2003, at 11:27 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> >>>>>> Richard Henderson writes:
> >
> > Richard> If you're returning parallels from function_arg, you won't
> > get here.
> >
> > You are suggesting that function_arg() return PARALLELs for all
> > arguments in this 32/64 mode, not just "long long" and "double"
> > arguments
> > that need to be split across two registers in 32-bit mode? That's a
> > lot
> > of code to emulate the GCC defaults in 32-bit mode.
>
> Can't the Sparc also benefit from the proposed changes in the
> machine-dependent area?
The current sparc code, no. If and when I rewrite the sparc 64-in-32
code to be more useful, it probably would benefit.