search for: llvm_extra

The attached patch (gcc.patch) implements the gcc portion of packed types. I have only tested this on a few examples, so I may be missing some type conversions somewhere. The gcc patch requires llvm_extra.patch, not included in the previous emails. Andrew -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: llvm_extra.patch Type: text/x-patch Size: 1677 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20061206/1c88dea4/attachment...

On Dec 6, 2006, at 1:58 PM, Andrew Lenharth wrote: > The attached patch (gcc.patch) implements the gcc portion of packed > types. I have only tested this on a few examples, so I may be missing > some type conversions somewhere. > > The gcc patch requires llvm_extra.patch, not included in the > previous emails. > > Andrew > <llvm_extra.patch> llvm_extra.patch is fine, it can go in with the rest. > <gcc.patch> This patch isn't sufficient for two reasons: 1) it will turn structs that don't need to be packed into packed l...

Attached is a cleaned up patch. Andrew -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: packed.patch Type: text/x-patch Size: 12700 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20061206/26110f77/attachment.bin>

Currently, Structure layout is left to targets, which implement them according to the ABI of that platform. While this is fine for most structures, it makes packed structures very ugly. All fields in a packed type must be converted to byte arrays with casts to access fields, which bloats accesses and obsfucates the types. First class support for packed types would clean up the generated code