llvm dev - Sep 2010 - [LLVMdev] [PATCH] Support for ARM Run-Time ABI (FP and Integer helper functions)

I wrote that loop. :-)

So now the differences between this patch and the one I had been sitting on are:

* We have opposite condition codes in our FP comparisons.
* This patch has integer division, which seems like a good thing, but
wasn't needed for my A9 target.

Are you sure about the comparisons?

deep

On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Evzen Muller <evzen.muller at arm.com>
wrote:
> Hi Deep,
>
> Loop for setting all libcall calling conventions to ARM_AAPCS was
> in original version, but I agree that it could have unexpected
> side effects.
> Attached patch sets calling convention only for added libcalls.
>
> Evzen
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sandeep Patel [mailto:deeppatel1987 at gmail.com]
>> Sent: 27 September 2010 19:50
>> To: Evzen Muller
>> Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu
>> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [PATCH] Support for ARM Run-Time ABI (FP and
>> Integer helper functions)
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Evzen Muller <evzen.muller at
arm.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > To make it easier to review & commit I have split and
cleaned-up our
>> > original
>> > "Support for ARM Run-Time ABI" patch, this part adds
support for calls
>> which
>> >
>> > can be mapped using setLibcallName.
>>
>> As noted in the earlier thread on this, I'm pretty sure that we
need
>> to only apply the AAPCS calling convention to exactly the set of
>> libcalls that you're adding here. Other libcalls outside this set
>> should use the "native" calling convention such as AAPCS-VFP.
>>
>> deep
>

> * We have opposite condition codes in our FP comparisons.
No, Evzen is correct. The condcode is used to test the libcall result
against zero and EABI libcalls return 1 in case of "true" result of
the comparison,
thus we have to invert the condcode agains the default value.

-- 
With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov
Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University

On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 9:24 PM, Anton Korobeynikov
<anton at korobeynikov.info> wrote:
>> * We have opposite condition codes in our FP comparisons.
> No, Evzen is correct. The condcode is used to test the libcall result
> against zero and EABI libcalls return 1 in case of "true" result
of
> the comparison,
> thus we have to invert the condcode agains the default value.
I guess I never saw a float cmp libcall in my testing, which makes
sense for the platforms I was testing on.

LGTM then.

deep