This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFA: xscale-elf -mstrict-prototypes
- From: James Lemke <jim at wasabisystems dot com>
- To: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>
- Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 11:35:41 -0500
- Subject: Re: RFA: xscale-elf -mstrict-prototypes
- References: <200403031455.i23EteE20235@pc960.cambridge.arm.com>
> AAPCS section 5.5 rule B.2. Since the caller is required to extend the
> value, there is clearly no need for the callee to do so.
OK. Thanks for the clarification.
> Even the ATPCS (and the APCS before that) had a similar requirement,
> though expressed differently. The fact that GCC has been overly
> conservative is a bug that I've long wanted to fix.
> > OK. I wasn't sure how conservative we should be.
> GCC has promoted arguments in the caller now for so long, that I see no
> need to worry about backwards compatibility problems.
Good, that's easier.
> > So you're suggesting that I reduce my patch to something like the
> > following?
> > config/arm/arm.c:
> > -#define TARGET_PROMOTE_PROTOTYPES hook_bool_tree_true
> > +#define TARGET_PROMOTE_PROTOTYPES hook_bool_tree_false
> Provided this doesn't also inhibit the caller-side promotion, yes.
I don't think so, but I'll double check and make up a complete patch.
James Lemke firstname.lastname@example.org Orillia, Ontario