From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <xry111@mengyan1223.wang>
Received: from mengyan1223.wang (mengyan1223.wang [89.208.246.23])
 by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58A5F3858D3C;
 Fri, 18 Mar 2022 13:11:16 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 58A5F3858D3C
Received: from [IPv6:240e:358:114f:8500:dc73:854d:832e:3] (unknown
 [IPv6:240e:358:114f:8500:dc73:854d:832e:3])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature ECDSA (P-384))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 (Authenticated sender: xry111@mengyan1223.wang)
 by mengyan1223.wang (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E3D0B661A6;
 Fri, 18 Mar 2022 09:11:10 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <c3a19e2fa7341acc23e7c57bce04fe5e1b93467e.camel@mengyan1223.wang>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] mips: add TARGET_ZERO_CALL_USED_REGS hook
 [PR104817, PR104820]
From: Xi Ruoyao <xry111@mengyan1223.wang>
To: Qing Zhao <qing.zhao@oracle.com>, Richard Sandiford
 <richard.sandiford@arm.com>
Cc: Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>, "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org"
 <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, YunQiang Su <yunqiang.su@cipunited.com>, Jakub
 Jelinek <jakub@gcc.gnu.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2022 21:11:06 +0800
In-Reply-To: <B99DB0A3-1F79-48DC-98E3-30276B0EC3F4@oracle.com>
References: <93ab62b2b9473733e5118f4265b61804978adfd7.camel@mengyan1223.wang>
 <mpt35jrc7ac.fsf@arm.com> <53408AB1-0FA4-4529-95D9-A10FA8999DF6@oracle.com>
 <c14900bd9ba29c34677fe096c55ba5fa08b80993.camel@mengyan1223.wang>
 <DDABC9EE-3538-436A-9B52-1B788F6BEC3A@oracle.com>
 <b1a497440207cf53d3f733da432ea98f2c94635c.camel@mengyan1223.wang>
 <E52A7D14-427E-49D6-93CC-763F48913E46@oracle.com>
 <4ec3ce765b9959334d2a3e08d8957fc2fcf57f7d.camel@mengyan1223.wang>
 <a35edea4182d9472a4914458dee129f2b084bcff.camel@mengyan1223.wang>
 <mptsfrka5b3.fsf@arm.com> <B99DB0A3-1F79-48DC-98E3-30276B0EC3F4@oracle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.42.4 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3031.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED,
 DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL, SPF_HELO_PASS,
 SPF_PASS, TXREP,
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on
 server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-patches>,
 <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-patches>,
 <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2022 13:11:20 -0000


> 
> If we have to go this way, I think it’s better to make the change you
> suggested above, 
> and then also update the documentation, both internal documentation on
> how to define
>  the hook and the user level documentation on what the user might
> expect when using 
> this option (i.e, it’s possible that the compiler might clear more
> registers than the user 
> requests on some targets due to the implementation limitation). 
> 
> I can make this change if we decide to do this.

I'd vote for this.  Richard?
-- 
Xi Ruoyao <xry111@mengyan1223.wang>
School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University