From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14567 invoked by alias); 28 Feb 2013 16:54:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 14464 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Feb 2013 16:54:34 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,TW_DM X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 16:54:24 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.93]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1UB6kR-00040v-4A from joseph_myers@mentor.com ; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 08:54:23 -0800 Received: from SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([137.202.0.104]) by svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 28 Feb 2013 08:54:22 -0800 Received: from digraph.polyomino.org.uk (137.202.0.76) by SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com (137.202.0.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.289.1; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 16:54:20 +0000 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UB6kN-0001gA-Be; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 16:54:19 +0000 Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 16:54:00 -0000 From: "Joseph S. Myers" To: Roland McGrath CC: Subject: Re: [PATCH roland/arm-avoid-r9] ARM: Use r10 instead of r9. In-Reply-To: <20130228010102.162DD2C0A1@topped-with-meat.com> Message-ID: References: <20130228010102.162DD2C0A1@topped-with-meat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Mailing-List: contact libc-ports-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-ports-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2013-02/txt/msg00134.txt.bz2 On Wed, 27 Feb 2013, Roland McGrath wrote: > The arm-nacl ABI reserves r9 for the system (as EABI says some variants > might). r10 is just the same for other instruction-set and ABI issues, > so this uses r10 in place of r9. This will need updating for the push/pop patch that I approved. Apart from that, > @@ -237,18 +237,18 @@ ENTRY(memmove) > orr r5, r5, r4, pull #\pull > mov r4, r4, push #\push > orr r4, r4, r3, pull #\pull > - stmdb r0!, {r4 - r9, ip, lr} > + stmdb r0!, {r4 - r10, ip, lr} looks like it should use r4 - r8, r10 rather than r4 - r10, and similarly > - ldmfd sp!, {r5 - r9} > + ldmfd sp!, {r5 - r10} looks like it should be r5-r8, r10. How was this patch tested? -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com