Thanks! Committed.
On 07/28/2011 01:30 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
> Fails the same way with a parameter as with a local:
>
> int result;
> void __attribute__((naked)) ISRFunction(int x) {
>result = subFunction(&x);
> }
>
> but I'm certainly open to a better explanation of how a user program
> can trigger an ICE that
Fails the same way with a parameter as with a local:
int result;
void __attribute__((naked)) ISRFunction(int x) {
result = subFunction(&x);
}
but I'm certainly open to a better explanation of how a user program
can trigger an ICE that way.
Hmmm... the only use of targetm.calls.allocate_stack
On 07/28/2011 12:38 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
> Naked is related to TARGET_ALLOCATE_STACK_SLOTS_FOR_ARGS - ARM and RX
> set the latter based on the former, and nobody else uses that target
> hook. So, naked functions don't have stack slots for args. Without
> stack slots, args can't be assigned to me
Naked is related to TARGET_ALLOCATE_STACK_SLOTS_FOR_ARGS - ARM and RX
set the latter based on the former, and nobody else uses that target
hook. So, naked functions don't have stack slots for args. Without
stack slots, args can't be assigned to memory locations - even if
they're TREE_ADDRESSABLE
On 07/26/2011 12:52 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
> This patch tests for at least one user-caused reason for this
> assertion failing - requiring a local frame in a naked function. For
> this case at least, it would be better to trigger an error than to
> ICE. OK?
>
> static int bar;
> void __attribute_
This patch tests for at least one user-caused reason for this
assertion failing - requiring a local frame in a naked function. For
this case at least, it would be better to trigger an error than to
ICE. OK?
static int bar;
void __attribute__((naked)) function(void) {
int foo, result;
resu
