[dzaima]

Function arguments and return values already are effectively special use, and should frequently be on par if not much more frequent than the couple x86 instructions with fixed registers.

Both clang and gcc support calls having differing used calling conventions within one function, which ends up effectively exactly identical to fixed-register instructions (i.e. an x86 'imul r64' can be done via a pseudo-function where the return values are in rdx & rax, an input is in rax, and everything else is non-volatile; and the dynamically-choosable input can be allocated separately). And '__asm__()' can do mixed fixed and non-fixed registers anyway.

[hajile]

Unlike x86, none of this is strictly necessary. As long as you put things back as expected, you may use all the registers however you like.

[dzaima]

The option of not needing any fixed register usage would apply to, what, optimizing compilers without support for function calls (at least via passing arguments/results via registers)? That's a very tiny niche to use as an argument for having simplified compiler behavior.

And good register allocation is still pretty important on RISC-V - using more registers, besides leading to less compressed instruction usage, means more non-volatile register spilling/restoring in function prologue/epilogue, which on current compilers (esp. clang) happens at the start & end of functions, even in paths that don't need the registers.

That said, yes, RISC-V still indeed has much saner baseline behavior here and allows for simpler basic register allocation, but for non-trivial compilers the actual set of useful optimizations isn't that different.

[hajile]

Not just simpler basic allocation. There are fewer hazards to account for as well. The process on RISC-V should be shorter, faster, and with less risk that the chosen heuristics are bad in an edge case.