https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65471
Wink Saville changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wink at saville dot com
--- Comment #3
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: wink at saville dot com
Target Milestone: ---
I'm using the new C interrupt attribute for x86 and its working well. But when
I expanded its u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70220
--- Comment #2 from Wink Saville ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #1)
> (In reply to Wink Saville from comment #0)
> > I have identified one possible problem and with this scheme, what if the
> > compiler needs to setup a stack frame by push
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70220
--- Comment #5 from Wink Saville ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
> (In reply to Wink Saville from comment #0)
> > I'm using the new C interrupt attribute for x86 and its working well. But
> > when I expanded its use to include handling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70220
--- Comment #7 from Wink Saville ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> (In reply to Wink Saville from comment #2)
> > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #1)
> > > (In reply to Wink Saville from comment #0)
> > > > I have identified one possi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70220
--- Comment #9 from Wink Saville ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #8)
> (In reply to Wink Saville from comment #7)
> >
> > In my opinion, even if rbp is special, it still needs to be available in the
> > struct full_stack_frame.
>
> The who
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70220
--- Comment #11 from Wink Saville ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #10)
> (In reply to Wink Saville from comment #9)
> > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #8)
> > > (In reply to Wink Saville from comment #7)
> > > >
> > > > In my opinion, ev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70220
--- Comment #13 from Wink Saville ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #12)
> (In reply to Wink Saville from comment #11)
> > > > The rsp is always saved/restored by the hardware, and your struct frame
> > > > pointer provides access to it so no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70220
--- Comment #15 from Wink Saville ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #14)
> (In reply to Wink Saville from comment #13)
> > > Compiler should be free to use rbp in anyway it sees fit. Spec shouldn't
> > > say anything other than rbp is special
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70220
--- Comment #17 from Wink Saville ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #16)
> (In reply to Wink Saville from comment #15)
> > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #14)
> > > (In reply to Wink Saville from comment #13)
> > > > > Compiler should be f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70220
--- Comment #19 from Wink Saville ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #18)
> (In reply to Wink Saville from comment #17)
> > >
> > > I assume you were referring to real debugger, like GDB. Spec won't
> > > specify
> > > where/how/when any re
11 matches
Mail list logo
