On Thu, 2023-12-07 at 09:40 +0800, Yang Yujie wrote:
> static void
> loongarch_for_each_saved_reg (HOST_WIDE_INT sp_offset,
> - loongarch_save_restore_fn fn)
> + loongarch_save_restore_fn fn,
> + bool skip_eh_data_regs_p)
> {
> HOST_WIDE_INT offset;
>
> /* Save the link register and s-registers. */
> offset = cfun->machine->frame.gp_sp_offset - sp_offset;
> for (int regno = GP_REG_FIRST; regno <= GP_REG_LAST; regno++)
> - if (BITSET_P (cfun->machine->frame.mask, regno - GP_REG_FIRST))
> - {
> - if (!cfun->machine->reg_is_wrapped_separately[regno])
> - loongarch_save_restore_reg (word_mode, regno, offset, fn);
> + {
> + /* Special care needs to be taken for $r4-$r7 (EH_RETURN_DATA_REGNO)
> + when returning normally from a function that calls __builtin_eh_return.
> + In this case, these registers are saved but should not be restored,
> + or the return value may be clobbered. */
>
> - offset -= UNITS_PER_WORD;
> - }
> + if (BITSET_P (cfun->machine->frame.mask, regno - GP_REG_FIRST))
> + {
> + if (!(cfun->machine->reg_is_wrapped_separately[regno]
> + || (skip_eh_data_regs_p
> + && GP_ARG_FIRST <= regno && regno < GP_ARG_FIRST + 4)))
> + loongarch_save_restore_reg (word_mode, regno, offset, fn);
> +
> + offset -= UNITS_PER_WORD;
> + }
> + }
I don't like this pair of {} for the for statement. It's not necessary
and it changes the indent level, causing the diff hard to review.
Otherwise LGTM. I'm not sure why I didn't notice the eh_return issue
when I learnt shrink wrapping from RISC-V...
--
Xi Ruoyao <[email protected]>
School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University
