From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14507 invoked by alias); 10 Oct 2012 22:44:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 14454 invoked by uid 48); 10 Oct 2012 22:44:18 -0000 From: "kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/54602] [SH] Register pop insn not put in rts delay slot Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 22:44:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement X-Bugzilla-Who: kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-10/txt/msg01023.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54602 --- Comment #4 from Kazumoto Kojima 2012-10-10 22:44:17 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > Kaz, could you please also have a pre-look at this? I might be missing > something... Looks reasonable to me, though I also might be missing something. > Also, I've noticed that on SH4 (which has banked regs R0..R7) the banked regs > are also saved / restored in an interrupt function. This actually defeats the > purpose of the R0..R7 register bank. Maybe some historic reason, or just > accident? I don't know the history about it. I can only imagine that some system could assume some banked regs will be not clobbered with their exception handler and will be used like as normal registers. A new -m option which controls the behavior of which default is not to save/restore the banked regs?