On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> wrote: > To be feature complete, it would be nice to have two styles of interrupt > functions, one that returns with iret, and one that returns with ret. The > point is that the user might want to call functions from a interrupt handler > and not save and restore all call clobbered registers. By allowing a ret > style interrupt handler, calls to a ret style interrupt routine can avoid > saving and restoring all call clobbered registers.
Do you have a testcase for this? I think the current implementation covers most use cases. > Oh, and I wish that all the port independent code for interrupt functions was > shared across all ports, as redoing all this code for each port is silly > (sad). And example of this would be the sibcall code, the fact that all call > saved registers need to be saved is another. The EPILOGUE_USES or the > gen_rtx_USE is yet another. Type checking the return type to ensure the > return type is void, likely another. A very good point, but beyond this implementation :-(. > One last comment, most folks use EPILOGUE_USES and mark up the registers as > used. You don’t. I’m not sure if both ways work equally well, or if there > is a reason to prefer one over the other. Maybe someone could comment on > this, as in my port I use EPILOGUE_USES and it seems to work just fine. We will take a look. > On Sep 29, 2015, at 6:49 AM, Yulia Koval <vaalfr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> + /* Always need to save SSE registrers in interrupt handler. */ > > Spelling registrers -> registers. > > Not in your code, but I noticed it: > >> /* All pointer bounds argumntas are handled separately here. */ > > Spelling argumntas -> arguments? I checked in an obvious patch to fix those typos. Thanks. -- H.J.
