It's a shame LLVM isn't more explicit about calling conventions (especially since the front-end has to lower most of the platform-specific C ABI details, short of the exact list of registers or stack offsets, into LLVM IR anyway).
(if it was more expressive, we could have e.g. specifiers similar to inline `asm!`, but on a function signature, to fully describe its call ABI)
In the meanwhile, I agree - if you need some entry-point to have a custom ABI (especially if you need it parameterized through generics), `#[naked]` + inline `asm!` is the only viable option for now.
Especially with const generics, you can do some cool stuff to make very compact trampolines that e.g. embed immediates directly into instructions (though it's sad that `const` operands in inline `asm!` aren't stable yet).
But for interrupt ABIs I would hope that LLVM can fully support them and avoid any inefficiencies that "whole body is one inline `asm!`" could create by blocking LLVM from doing optimizations, clever register allocation, etc.
(that is, they let the user control when they do something special with inline `asm!` vs regular code that LLVM understands)
(if it was more expressive, we could have e.g. specifiers similar to inline `asm!`, but on a function signature, to fully describe its call ABI)
In the meanwhile, I agree - if you need some entry-point to have a custom ABI (especially if you need it parameterized through generics), `#[naked]` + inline `asm!` is the only viable option for now.
Especially with const generics, you can do some cool stuff to make very compact trampolines that e.g. embed immediates directly into instructions (though it's sad that `const` operands in inline `asm!` aren't stable yet).
But for interrupt ABIs I would hope that LLVM can fully support them and avoid any inefficiencies that "whole body is one inline `asm!`" could create by blocking LLVM from doing optimizations, clever register allocation, etc.
(that is, they let the user control when they do something special with inline `asm!` vs regular code that LLVM understands)