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
20 matches
Mail list logo
