x5 is used as an alternate link register, so using it for sibcalls
will confuse hardware return-address stacks and reduce performance for
implementations that have one.
The reason I excluded a0-a7 is that those are used to pass arguments
to the sibcallee. It's of course possible that's more restrictive
than necessary, but make sure to test before merging.
On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 12:16 PM Andrew Burgess
<andrew.burg...@embecosm.com> wrote:
>
> The current SIBCALL_REGS are x6, x7, and x28 to x31. These are all
> caller saved registers, however, they are not all of the caller saved
> registers.
>
> I don't see any reason why we couldn't add t1, and a0 to a7 into this
> set, and this is what this patch does.
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> * config/riscv/riscv.h (REG_CLASS_CONTENTS): Update SIBCALL_REGS.
> ---
> gcc/ChangeLog | 4 ++++
> gcc/config/riscv/riscv.h | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.h b/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.h
> index 5fc9be8edbf2..bb8240bb849a 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.h
> +++ b/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.h
> @@ -400,7 +400,7 @@ enum reg_class
> #define REG_CLASS_CONTENTS \
> { \
> { 0x00000000, 0x00000000, 0x00000000 }, /* NO_REGS */ \
> - { 0xf00000c0, 0x00000000, 0x00000000 }, /* SIBCALL_REGS */ \
> + { 0xf003fce0, 0x00000000, 0x00000000 }, /* SIBCALL_REGS */ \
> { 0xffffffc0, 0x00000000, 0x00000000 }, /* JALR_REGS */ \
> { 0xffffffff, 0x00000000, 0x00000000 }, /* GR_REGS */ \
> { 0x00000000, 0xffffffff, 0x00000000 }, /* FP_REGS */ \
> --
> 2.14.5
>
