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.
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.
jeff
