On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 09:09:51PM +0200, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 7/3/19 5:43 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > >> @@ -212,6 +214,7 @@ enum reg_class > >> #define REG_CLASS_CONTENTS \ > >> { { 0x00000000, 0x00000000 }, \ > >> { SIBCALL_REGS_MASK, 0 }, \ > >> + { 0x7ffffefe, 0x00000000 }, \ > > > > Above you said r0, r30, r31 are excluded, but this is r0, r8, r30, or > > in GCC register numbers, 0, 8, and 31? You probably should mention r8 > > somewhere (it's because it is the last arg, this avoid problems, I guess?), > > and the 30/31 thing is confused some way. Maybe it is all just that one > > documentation line :-) > > ... and if r8 is excluded because of arguments, I suspect that this is the > wrong fix, as there's nothing inherently wrong with r7:r8 or r8:r9 as a pair, > at least that I can see. > > Perhaps function_arg and/or function_arg_advance is the right place for a fix? > The calling convention says that 64-bit arguments are not split across > registers+stack, so you already shouldn't have seen (r8, [sp+0]) as a pair.
I will double check, the mask may be wrong. It should not matter about the function args. I didn't see any issue that caused me to add r8. So I may have just masked thw rong bit thinking it's r31. Is there something worng with what I did? The mask is 0x7ffffefe, and names should corresbond to this name list? #define REGISTER_NAMES { "r0", "r1", "r2", "r3", "r4", "r5", "r6", "r7", # 7e, excl r0 "r8", "r9", "r10", "r11", "r12", "r13", "r14", "r15", # ff, excl none "r17", "r19", "r21", "r23", "r25", "r27", "r29", "r31", # fe, excl r31 "r16", "r18", "r20", "r22", "r24", "r26", "r28", "r30", # fe, excl r30 "?ap", "?fp", "?sr_f" } Do I have it backwards? With an endian issue? -Stafford