Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 16:29:19 +1000 From: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com> To: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> Cc: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@...aro.org>, libc-alpha@...rceware.org, libc-dev@...ts.llvm.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Powerpc Linux 'scv' system call ABI proposal take 2 Excerpts from Nicholas Piggin's message of April 22, 2020 4:18 pm: > If we go further and try to preserve r3 as well by putting the return > value in r9 or r0, we go backwards about 300 bytes. It's good for the > lock loops and complex functions, but hurts a lot of simpler functions > that have to add 'mr r3,r9' etc. > > Most of the time there are saved non-volatile GPRs around anyway though, > so not sure which way to go on this. Text size savings can't be ignored > and it's pretty easy for the kernel to do (we already save r3-r8 and > zero them on exit, so we could load them instead from cache line that's > should be hot). > > So I may be inclined to go this way, even if we won't see benefit now. By, "this way" I don't mean r9 or r0 return value (which is larger code), but r3 return value with r0,r4-r8 preserved. Thanks, Nick
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.