Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 10:26:49 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Shawn Hargreaves <shawn AT talula DOT demon DOT co DOT uk>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: gcc 3.0
In-Reply-To: <19990526205550.A17097@talula.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990527102623.9561B-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Wed, 26 May 1999, Shawn Hargreaves wrote:

> Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> writes:
> > My suggestion was meant to be a replacement for the mandatory use of
> > the library wrappers.  I think saying "#pragma interrupt" is easier
> > than throwing in all the code to call the wrapper
> 
> That is certainly true. Surely gcc would use an __attribute__ for this 
> rather than a #pragma, though? Judging from the info pages, the gcc 
> developers don't like #pragma very much

This is probably so, although with the recent changes in GCC
development team it remains to be seen how strong these views are.

My thinking about #pragma was triggered by the fact that it is
*already* supported by GCC for certain CPUs.  Clearly, adding support
for an existing feature will have less trouble getting into the
official release than inventing a new feature.

But if GCC supports something like __attribute__((interrupt)), then I
agree we should go for that.  I'm not privy enough to GCC/EGCS
developments to know whether in fact such an attribute exists.