On 2023/01/23 0:45, Max Filippov wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 8:39 PM Takayuki 'January June' Suwa
> wrote:
>> On 2023/01/21 0:14, Max Filippov wrote:
>>> After having this many attempts and getting to the issues that are
>>> really hard to detect I wonder if the target backend is the right
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 8:39 PM Takayuki 'January June' Suwa
wrote:
> On 2023/01/21 0:14, Max Filippov wrote:
> > After having this many attempts and getting to the issues that are
> > really hard to detect I wonder if the target backend is the right place
> > for this optimization?
> >
> I guess
On 2023/01/21 0:14, Max Filippov wrote:
> Hi Suwa-san,
Hi!
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 7:50 PM Takayuki 'January June' Suwa
> wrote:
>>
>> In the previous patch, if insn is JUMP_INSN or CALL_INSN, it bypasses the
>> reg check (possibly FAIL).
>>
>> =
>> In the case of the CALL0 ABI, values
Hi Suwa-san,
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 7:50 PM Takayuki 'January June' Suwa
wrote:
>
> In the previous patch, if insn is JUMP_INSN or CALL_INSN, it bypasses the reg
> check (possibly FAIL).
>
> =
> In the case of the CALL0 ABI, values that must be retained before and
> after function calls
In the previous patch, if insn is JUMP_INSN or CALL_INSN, it bypasses the reg
check (possibly FAIL).
=
In the case of the CALL0 ABI, values that must be retained before and
after function calls are placed in the callee-saved registers (A12
through A15) and referenced later. However, it is
