Re: [PATCH] RL78 new "vector" function attribute

2018-02-12 Thread DJ Delorie
"Sebastian Perta" writes: >>>Looks OK to me, but wait a day or two for a docs person to comment on... > 6 days no comments so far, can I check in now? Yup, go ahead. >>>if the new line is too long > There are many other lines which have the same length or are even

RE: [PATCH] RL78 new "vector" function attribute

2018-02-12 Thread Sebastian Perta
tian Perta <sebastian.pe...@renesas.com> > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH] RL78 new "vector" function attribute > > > Sebastian Perta <sebastian.pe...@renesas.com> writes: > > I've updated the patch (extend.texi) as you suggested. &g

Re: [PATCH] RL78 new "vector" function attribute

2018-02-06 Thread DJ Delorie
Sebastian Perta writes: > I've updated the patch (extend.texi) as you suggested. > Please let me know if this is OK to check-in, thank you! Looks OK to me, but wait a day or two for a docs person to comment on... > -On RX targets, you may specify one or more vector

RE: [PATCH] RL78 new "vector" function attribute

2018-02-06 Thread Sebastian Perta
bute__ ((interrupt)) interrupt_handler (); + +void interrupt_handler () +{ +} + +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "tableentry" } } */ > -Original Message- > From: DJ Delorie [mailto:d...@redhat.com] > Sent: 29 January 2018 21:11 > To: Sebastian Perta <sebastian.pe...

Re: [PATCH] RL78 new "vector" function attribute

2018-01-29 Thread DJ Delorie
If the RX and RL78 now share interrupt/vector semantics, can we combine the docs? I.e. instead of a new section for RL78, can we change the RX section to say something like "For RX and RL78..." ?

RE: [PATCH] RL78 new "vector" function attribute

2018-01-29 Thread Sebastian Perta
Hello, The below patch adds a new vector attribute for RL78, it is basically a copy past of what DJ has done for RX a while ago: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-05/msg02387.html The patch adds also a test case and updates extend.texi with the new attribute. Regression test is OK, tested