From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3002 invoked by alias); 10 Oct 2012 23:24:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 2512 invoked by uid 48); 10 Oct 2012 23:24:08 -0000 From: "olegendo 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 23:24:00 -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: olegendo 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/msg01026.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54602 --- Comment #5 from Oleg Endo 2012-10-10 23:24:07 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) > > 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? Oh well, why not ;) But first I'd like to think this through. I'll open a new PR for it later.