craig.topper added a comment. In D99708#2664164 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D99708#2664164>, @hjl.tools wrote:
> In D99708#2664076 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D99708#2664076>, @LuoYuanke wrote: > >> In D99708#2663989 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D99708#2663989>, @craig.topper >> wrote: >> >>> A user interrupt is different than a regular interrupt right? It doesn't >>> make sense that we would change the behavior of the interrupt calling >>> convention just because the the user interrupt instructions are enabled. >>> That would occur just from passing a -march for a newer CPU wouldn't it? >> >> Maybe need support another attribute "__attribute__ ((user_interrupt))" for >> functions? However this is what gcc does >> (https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/8ojTMG6bT). > > Since there won't be both user interrupt handler and kernel interrupt handler > in the source, there is no need for another > attribute. We discussed that kernel might need to use UINTR instructions. > We decided that kernel could use inline asm > statements if needed. So if write kernel code and compile with -march=haswell today, I get IRET. If tomorrow I change my command line to -march=sapphirerapids, now my kernel interrupt code generates user interrupt instructions. That seems surprising. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D99708/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D99708 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
