On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 04:13:51PM +0800, Xi Ruoyao wrote:
>
> I understand and I don't think adding {} is wrong. The problem is the
> indent change causes a large chunk of diff and it makes reviewing more
> difficult. Thus generally we should not mix real code change and format
> change in a co
On Thu, 2023-12-07 at 14:18 +0800, Yang Yujie wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 11:02:58AM +0800, Xi Ruoyao wrote:
> >
> > I don't like this pair of {} for the for statement. It's not necessary
> > and it changes the indent level, causing the diff hard to review.
> >
> > Otherwise LGTM. I'm not
On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 11:02:58AM +0800, Xi Ruoyao wrote:
>
> I don't like this pair of {} for the for statement. It's not necessary
> and it changes the indent level, causing the diff hard to review.
>
> Otherwise LGTM. I'm not sure why I didn't notice the eh_return issue
> when I learnt shri
On Thu, 2023-12-07 at 09:40 +0800, Yang Yujie wrote:
> static void
> loongarch_for_each_saved_reg (HOST_WIDE_INT sp_offset,
> - loongarch_save_restore_fn fn)
> + loongarch_save_restore_fn fn,
> + bool skip_eh_data_regs_
On LoongArch, the regitsters $r4 - $r7 (EH_RETURN_DATA_REGNO) will be saved
and restored in the function prologue and epilogue if the given function calls
__builtin_eh_return. This causes the return value to be overwritten on normal
return paths and breaks a rare case of libgcc's _Unwind_RaiseExce
