Iain Sandoe <i...@sandoe.co.uk> writes: > Hi Richard, >> On 20 Jan 2022, at 22:32, Richard Sandiford <richard.sandif...@arm.com> >> wrot>> Iain Sandoe <i...@sandoe.co.uk> writes: >>>> On 10 Jan 2022, at 10:46, Richard Sandiford <richard.sandif...@arm.com> >>>> wrot>> An alternative might be to make promote_function_arg a “proper” >>>> ABI hook, taking a cumulative_args_t and a function_arg_info. >>>> Perhaps the return case should become a separate hook at the >>>> same time. >>>> >>>> That would probably require more extensive changes than just >>>> updating the call sites, and I haven't really checked how much >>>> work it would be, but hopefully it wouldn't be too bad. >>>> >>>> The new hook would still be called before function_arg, but that >>>> should no longer be a problem, since the new hook arguments would >>>> give the target the information it needs to decide whether the >>>> argument is passed in registers. >>> >>> Yeah, this was my next port of call (I have looked at it ~10 times and then >>> decided “not today, maybe there’s a simpler way”). > > … and I did not have a chance to look at this in the meantime … > >> BTW, finally catching up on old email, I see this is essentially also >> the approach that Maxim was taking with the TARGET_FUNCTION_ARG_BOUNDARY >> patches. What's the situation with those? > > I have the patches plus amendments to make use of their new functionality on > the > development branch, which is actually in pretty good shape (not much > difference > in testsuite results from other Darwin sub-ports). > > Maxim and I need to discuss amending the TARGET_FUNCTION_ARG_BOUNDARY > changes to account for Richard (B)’s comments. > > Likewise, I need to tweak the support for heap allocation of nested function > trampolines > to account for review comments.
Sounds great. > As always, it’s a question of fitting everything in… Yeah :-) The question probably sounded pushier than it was meant to, sorry. I just wanted to check that you or Maxim weren't still waiting on reviews. Richard
