Re: [Patch, stage-1, RFC]: i386: attribute regparm/stdcall and vaargs

2024-02-02 Thread Joseph Myers
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer via Gcc wrote: > Hi Joseph! > > On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 14:54:49 + (UTC) > Joseph Myers wrote: > > > On Tue, 30 Jan 2024, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer via Gcc wrote: > > > > > * builtin-attrs.def (ATTR_TM_NOTHROW_RT_LIST): Use ATTR_NOTHROW_LIST > > >

Re: [Patch, stage-1, RFC]: i386: attribute regparm/stdcall and vaargs

2024-02-02 Thread Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
Hi Joseph! On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 14:54:49 + (UTC) Joseph Myers wrote: > On Tue, 30 Jan 2024, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer via Gcc wrote: > > > * builtin-attrs.def (ATTR_TM_NOTHROW_RT_LIST): Use ATTR_NOTHROW_LIST > > instead of ATTR_TM_NOTHROW_LIST, thus removing ATTR_TM_REGPARM. > >

Re: [Patch, stage-1, RFC]: i386: attribute regparm/stdcall and vaargs

2024-01-30 Thread Joseph Myers
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer via Gcc wrote: > * builtin-attrs.def (ATTR_TM_NOTHROW_RT_LIST): Use ATTR_NOTHROW_LIST > instead of ATTR_TM_NOTHROW_LIST, thus removing ATTR_TM_REGPARM. That doesn't make sense. ATTR_TM_NOTHROW_RT_LIST is specifically a transactional

[Patch, stage-1, RFC]: i386: attribute regparm/stdcall and vaargs

2024-01-29 Thread Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
[I was torn towards asking gcc@ only, individual i386 maintainers in private or bluntly asking for help on gcc-patches or re-iterate through ABI, so in an attempt to cut off years of latency i hereby ask all and everybody for assistance. Stage4 means any chances are low, i know.. hence stage 1