Message-Id: <199905271859.SAA137296@out5.ibm.net>
From: "Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 15:00:59 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: gcc 3.0
References: <19990526205550 DOT A17097 AT talula DOT demon DOT co DOT uk>
In-reply-to: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990527102623.9561B-100000@is>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.11)
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

> 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.

Someone recently asked on one of the egcs lists about adding the 
interrupt attribute for a particular target and the egcs folks were quite 
receptive to the idea. Use their new search engine use 'interrupt' as the 
search term to find the discussions.

> 
> 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.
> 

It does for several targets.

Would this be something that would work the same for all x86 targets? 
If so, you might be able to convince someone on the list to do the work 
for you.

Mark

--- 
Mark Elbrecht, snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com
http://snowball.frogspace.net/