llvm dev - Jan 2007 - [LLVMdev] Indirect branch instruction

Hi,

I was looking for an indirect branch instruction in llvm, which would 
not take
a BasicBlock as argument, but a value. Reid told me on IRC that there is 
no such
instruction in llvm.

Is this deliberate? Or did you never face the need of this instruction yet?


Cheers,
Nicolas

On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, Nicolas Geoffray wrote:
> I was looking for an indirect branch instruction in llvm, which would 
> not take a BasicBlock as argument, but a value. Reid told me on IRC that 
> there is no such instruction in llvm.
>
> Is this deliberate? Or did you never face the need of this instruction 
> yet?
The switch instruction serves the same functional role.  In llvm-gcc, the 
GCC "Address of label" and "indirect goto" extensions are
compiled into a
switch instruction.

-Chris

-- 
http://nondot.org/sabre/
http://llvm.org/

On Jan 11, 2007, at 7:14 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, Nicolas Geoffray wrote:
>> I was looking for an indirect branch instruction in llvm, which would
>> not take a BasicBlock as argument, but a value. Reid told me on  
>> IRC that
>> there is no such instruction in llvm.
>>
>> Is this deliberate? Or did you never face the need of this  
>> instruction
>> yet?
>
> The switch instruction serves the same functional role.  In llvm- 
> gcc, the
> GCC "Address of label" and "indirect goto" extensions
are compiled
> into a
> switch instruction.
I think the question is how to branch to a location of which you do  
not have a label.
Presumably to avoid a stack overflow when you know that you only want  
to return the result of an indirect call.

- Eric
>
> -Chris
>
> -- 
> http://nondot.org/sabre/
> http://llvm.org/
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev