llvm dev - Jan 2009 - [LLVMdev] LowerArguments vs LowerFORMAL_ARGUMENTS

What is the difference between these two functions? The header file for
TargetLowering class says that LowerArguments must be implemented, but
only the Sparc and IA64 backends implement them. X86, PowerPC and
CellSPU implement LowerFORMAL_ARGUMENTS, but I can find a
setOperationAction that states that they should be lowered. Can someone
please explain this for me?

 

Thanks,

 

Micah Villmow

Systems Engineer

Advanced Technology & Performance

Advanced Micro Devices Inc.

S1-609 One AMD Place

Sunnyvale, CA. 94085

P: 408-749-3966

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090129/69ec2967/attachment.html>

On Jan 29, 2009, at 9:36 AM, Villmow, Micah wrote:
> What is the difference between these two functions? The header file  
> for TargetLowering class says that LowerArguments must be  
> implemented, but only the Sparc and IA64 backends implement them.  
> X86, PowerPC and CellSPU implement LowerFORMAL_ARGUMENTS, but I can  
> find a setOperationAction that states that they should be lowered.  
> Can someone please explain this for me?
LowerArguments is legacy code. It should be replaced with  
LowerFORMAL_ARGUMENTS. Unfortunately, not every target has switched  
over.  The default implementation is in SelectionDAGBuild.cpp

Evan
>
> Thanks,
>
> Micah Villmow
> Systems Engineer
> Advanced Technology & Performance
> Advanced Micro Devices Inc.
> S1-609 One AMD Place
> Sunnyvale, CA. 94085
> P: 408-749-3966
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090130/70959da3/attachment.html>