On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>
> HJ, I think Hal is right. Providing the data via arguments is vastly superior
> to providing it via builtins. I had actually been thinking the same thing
> myself.
>
> It should be easy to check that the function has the correct sig
On 09/22/15 04:52, David Chisnall wrote:
> On 22 Sep 2015, at 12:47, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> since __builtin_exception_error () is the same as
>> __builtin_return_address (0) and __builtin_interrupt_data () is
>> address of __builtin_exception_error () + size of register.
>
> Except that they’re *no
On 09/22/15 04:44, David Chisnall wrote:
> On 22 Sep 2015, at 12:39, H.J. Lu via cfe-dev wrote:
>>
>> The center piece of my proposal is not to change how parameters
>> are passed in compiler. As for user experience, the feedbacks on
>> my proposal from our users are very positive.
>
> Implement
On 09/22/15 01:41, David Chisnall wrote:
> On 21 Sep 2015, at 21:45, H.J. Lu via cfe-dev wrote:
>>
>> The main purpose of x86 interrupt attribute is to allow programmers
>> to write x86 interrupt/exception handlers in C WITHOUT assembly
>> stubs to avoid extra branch from assembly stubs to C funct
On 09/21/2015 04:03 PM, Hal Finkel wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "H.J. Lu"
>> To: "Hal Finkel"
>> Cc: "GCC Development" , cfe-...@lists.llvm.org
>> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 5:57:36 PM
>> Subject: Re: [cfe-
On 22 Sep 2015, at 12:47, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> since __builtin_exception_error () is the same as
> __builtin_return_address (0) and __builtin_interrupt_data () is
> address of __builtin_exception_error () + size of register.
Except that they’re *not*. __builtin_return_address(0) is guaranteed to
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:44 AM, David Chisnall
wrote:
> On 22 Sep 2015, at 12:39, H.J. Lu via cfe-dev wrote:
>>
>> The center piece of my proposal is not to change how parameters
>> are passed in compiler. As for user experience, the feedbacks on
>> my proposal from our users are very positive.
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:41 AM, David Chisnall
wrote:
> On 21 Sep 2015, at 21:45, H.J. Lu via cfe-dev wrote:
>>
>> The main purpose of x86 interrupt attribute is to allow programmers
>> to write x86 interrupt/exception handlers in C WITHOUT assembly
>> stubs to avoid extra branch from assembly s
On 22 Sep 2015, at 12:39, H.J. Lu via cfe-dev wrote:
>
> The center piece of my proposal is not to change how parameters
> are passed in compiler. As for user experience, the feedbacks on
> my proposal from our users are very positive.
Implementing the intrinsics for getting the current interru
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:11 AM, Hal Finkel wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "H.J. Lu"
>> To: "Hal Finkel"
>> Cc: "GCC Development" , cfe-...@lists.llvm.org
>> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 7:17:20 PM
>> Subject:
On 21 Sep 2015, at 21:45, H.J. Lu via cfe-dev wrote:
>
> The main purpose of x86 interrupt attribute is to allow programmers
> to write x86 interrupt/exception handlers in C WITHOUT assembly
> stubs to avoid extra branch from assembly stubs to C functions. I
> want to keep the number of new intr
- Original Message -
> From: "H.J. Lu"
> To: "Hal Finkel"
> Cc: "GCC Development" , cfe-...@lists.llvm.org
> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 7:17:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] RFC: Support x86 interrupt and exception handlers
>
>
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Hal Finkel wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "H.J. Lu"
>> To: "Hal Finkel"
>> Cc: "GCC Development" , cfe-...@lists.llvm.org
>> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 5:57:36 PM
>> Subject:
- Original Message -
> From: "H.J. Lu"
> To: "Hal Finkel"
> Cc: "GCC Development" , cfe-...@lists.llvm.org
> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 5:57:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] RFC: Support x86 interrupt and exception handlers
>
>
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Hal Finkel wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "H.J. Lu via cfe-dev"
>> To: "GCC Development" , cfe-...@lists.llvm.org
>> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 11:27:18 AM
>> Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] RFC: Suppor
- Original Message -
> From: "H.J. Lu via cfe-dev"
> To: "GCC Development" , cfe-...@lists.llvm.org
> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 11:27:18 AM
> Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] RFC: Support x86 interrupt and exception handlers
>
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 2:23 PM, John Criswell wrote:
> On 9/21/15 4:45 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:52 AM, John Criswell
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 9/21/15 12:27 PM, H.J. Lu via cfe-dev wrote:
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 12:26 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 15
On 9/21/15 4:45 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:52 AM, John Criswell wrote:
On 9/21/15 12:27 PM, H.J. Lu via cfe-dev wrote:
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 12:26 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 1:11 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
To implement interrupt and exception handlers for x86 p
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:52 AM, John Criswell wrote:
> On 9/21/15 12:27 PM, H.J. Lu via cfe-dev wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 12:26 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 1:11 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> To implement interrupt and exception handlers for x86 processors, a
On 9/21/15 12:27 PM, H.J. Lu via cfe-dev wrote:
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 12:26 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 1:11 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
To implement interrupt and exception handlers for x86 processors, a
compiler should support:
1. void * __builtin_ia32_interrupt_data (void)
I got
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 12:26 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 1:11 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> To implement interrupt and exception handlers for x86 processors, a
>>> compiler should support:
>>>
>>> 1. void * __builtin_ia32_interrupt_data (void)
>>
>> I got a feedback on the name of this
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 1:11 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> To implement interrupt and exception handlers for x86 processors, a
>> compiler should support:
>>
>> 1. void * __builtin_ia32_interrupt_data (void)
>
> I got a feedback on the name of this builtin function. Since
> it also works for 64-bit, we
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 12:07 AM, Matthew Fortune
wrote:
> H.J. Lu writes:
>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Matthew Fortune
>> wrote:
>> > H.J. Lu writes:
>> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 10:37 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> >> > The interrupt and exception handlers are called by x86 processors. X86
>>
H.J. Lu writes:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Matthew Fortune
> wrote:
> > H.J. Lu writes:
> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 10:37 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> > The interrupt and exception handlers are called by x86 processors. X86
> >> > hardware puts information on stack and calls the handler. T
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Matthew Fortune
wrote:
> H.J. Lu writes:
>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 10:37 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> > The interrupt and exception handlers are called by x86 processors. X86
>> > hardware puts information on stack and calls the handler. The
>> > requirements are
>> >
H.J. Lu writes:
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 10:37 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > The interrupt and exception handlers are called by x86 processors. X86
> > hardware puts information on stack and calls the handler. The
> > requirements are
> >
> > 1. Both interrupt and exception handlers must use the 'IRET
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 10:37 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> The interrupt and exception handlers are called by x86 processors. X86
> hardware puts information on stack and calls the handler. The
> requirements are
>
> 1. Both interrupt and exception handlers must use the 'IRET' instruction,
> instead of t
The interrupt and exception handlers are called by x86 processors. X86
hardware puts information on stack and calls the handler. The
requirements are
1. Both interrupt and exception handlers must use the 'IRET' instruction,
instead of the 'RET' instruction, to return from the handlers.
2. All re
28 matches
Mail list logo
