On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 11/30/2015 03:35 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: >> >> On 11/29/2015 06:14 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> >>> Is this safe for stage 3? >> >> >> Is there a reason to do it now? This doesn't include a testcase. > > Handling the proposed attribute requires extensions to the current > function_arg capabilities. > > I need to go back to the discussion between HJ, rth, Uros, myself and > probably others to get the full details. I recall two extensions to the > current set of return values from function_arg. One was to allow the > target to return an address. That address will be forced by the generic > code into a pseudo. > > I thought we agreed to one other extension to support the interrupt > mechanism, but again, I'll have to dig through the archives to remember the > full details.
This is the only extension needed to implement x86 interrupt attribute. It should have no impact on other targets which always have arguments either in memory or register. > These extensions were necessary to avoid some horrid hacks in the x86 > backend which Uros, quite reasonably, rejected. We agreed to return to this > after stage1 opened. > That is correct. Thanks. -- H.J.
