[patch i386]: For 4.6 add support of thiscall calling convention attribute for x86

[Dave Korn]

On 07/04/2010 15:45, Kai Tietz wrote:
> 2010/4/7 Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@

>> The one additional comment/question I have is whether it is "on the 386"
>> and "the Intel 386" or just "on 386" and "Intel 386".  Also, what is the
>> official name for that?  Perhaps say x86, or is this specific to 386 as
>> opposed to later generations?
> 
> Well, x86 or ?86 would be more correct in terms of processor-family. I
> used here the term, which was already used for fastcall convention. So
> I have no problem about modifiying it to x86 if people agree to this.

  I'm perfectly happy if you want to keep the wording as it is, because like
you say it just matches the language of the existing paragraph.  Technically,
it's all ia32 architectures, so x86 would be more precise, but only change it
if you're willing to update the fastcall paragraph to match.  OK by me either way.

> Dave: Thanks for catching this in target definition about
> fastcall/thiscall. But I don't think we should mention here
> regparm-directive. regparm is using different registers, 

  Boh!  Right, then I agree it would be better not to mention it; the idea was
to make things clearer, not confuse them with an unhelpful "it's just like X,
execept for A, and B, and ....." analogy.

    cheers,
      DaveK