Currently, Alpha, PowerPC and X86 implement LowerFORMAL_ARGUMENTS. PowerPC and X86 lower ISD::CALL in LowerOperation. Alpha implements custom select. What is the preferred way to implement this? Thanks, Rafael
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, [UTF-8] Rafael Esp?ndola wrote:> Currently, Alpha, PowerPC and X86 implement LowerFORMAL_ARGUMENTS. > PowerPC and X86 lower ISD::CALL in LowerOperation. Alpha implements > custom select. What is the preferred way to implement this?The preferred way to handle this is to implement it in XXXTargetLowering::LowerOperation like PPC/X86/Alpha do. -Chris -- http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://llvm.org/
On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 15:35 -0300, Rafael EspĂndola wrote:> Currently, Alpha, PowerPC and X86 implement LowerFORMAL_ARGUMENTS. > PowerPC and X86 lower ISD::CALL in LowerOperation. Alpha implements > custom select. What is the preferred way to implement this?The custom select is because nodes with variable number of arguments (as needed to lower ISD::CALL) didn't use to work. I've been waiting until that is fixed to lower calls rather than custom select them. I have a patch to do so sitting around, which I might get around to applying since I think the variable arguments thing is fixed. Andrew> Thanks, > Rafael > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >-- http://www.lenharth.org/~andrewl/ And without software to do something useful with all that hardware, the hardware's nothing more than a really complicated space heater. --Neal Stephenson
Possibly Parallel Threads
- [LLVMdev] Generating code for target with immediate constant?
- [LLVMdev] Help with promotion/custom handling of MUL i32 and MUL i64
- Handling node through TargetLowering::LowerOperation vs TargetLowering::ReplaceNodeResults
- Handling node through TargetLowering::LowerOperation vs TargetLowering::ReplaceNodeResults
- Return value from TargetLowering::LowerOperation?