From: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com>
To: Iain Sandoe <iain@sandoe.co.uk>
Cc: GCC Development <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>,
Maxim Blinov <maxim.blinov@embecosm.com>
Subject: Re: Help with an ABI peculiarity
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2022 22:32:06 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <mpt4k5yox7d.fsf@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <EBC7E620-0C78-406C-8827-F7F265B03D43@sandoe.co.uk> (Iain Sandoe's message of "Mon, 10 Jan 2022 13:06:55 +0000")
Iain Sandoe <iain@sandoe.co.uk> writes:
>> On 10 Jan 2022, at 10:46, Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@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”).
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? Sorry for not responding
to them earlier.
Thanks,
Richard
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-01-20 22:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-01-07 21:06 Iain Sandoe
2022-01-07 21:55 ` Paul Koning
2022-01-08 16:35 ` Jeff Law
2022-01-10 8:38 ` Florian Weimer
2022-01-10 13:27 ` Iain Sandoe
2022-01-10 13:46 ` Florian Weimer
2022-01-11 12:53 ` Eric Gallager
2022-01-11 11:57 ` Richard Earnshaw
2022-01-10 10:46 ` Richard Sandiford
2022-01-10 13:06 ` Iain Sandoe
2022-01-20 22:32 ` Richard Sandiford [this message]
2022-01-21 11:19 ` Iain Sandoe
2022-01-21 12:22 ` Richard Sandiford
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=mpt4k5yox7d.fsf@arm.com \
--to=richard.sandiford@arm.com \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=iain@sandoe.co.uk \
--cc=maxim.blinov@embecosm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).