https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70220
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70220
--- Comment #18 from H.J. Lu ---
(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 register is saved.
>
> From my perspective the spec defines
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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70220
--- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu ---
(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 free to use rbp in anyway it sees fit. Spec
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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70220
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu ---
(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 to compiler.
>
> If the compiler does decide to
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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70220
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu ---
(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 problem there. It is special because
> > > when
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,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70220
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
(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, even if rbp is special, it still needs to be available
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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70220
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
(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 whole idea of extending interrupter attribute is to avoid
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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70220
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Wink Saville from comment #5)
> >
> > Compiler doesn't use segment registers, except for TLS, which should
> > be used in ISR. ISR needs to save and restore any registers, which
> > aren't used by
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 #4 from H.J. Lu ---
(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 thread context switches, I found
> that its
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70220
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
(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 possible problem and with this scheme, what if the
> >
18 matches
Mail list logo