Hi, I was trying to remove some old code that handles ReturnInsts with more than 1 operand -- see attached patch -- when I stumbled across test/Assembler/aggregate-return-single-value.ll: define { i32 } @fooa() nounwind { ret i32 0 } ... define [1 x i32] @fooc() nounwind { ret i32 0 } Is there really any need to handle these odd cases, where the type of the value being returned doesn't match the return type of the function? Thanks, Jay. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: multiple-return.diff Type: text/x-patch Size: 3410 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110401/21c05fd9/attachment.bin>
No reason, feel free to zap it. Thanks! -Chris On Apr 1, 2011, at 8:49 AM, Jay Foad <jay.foad at gmail.com> wrote:> Hi, > > I was trying to remove some old code that handles ReturnInsts with > more than 1 operand -- see attached patch -- when I stumbled across > test/Assembler/aggregate-return-single-value.ll: > > define { i32 } @fooa() nounwind { > ret i32 0 > } > ... > define [1 x i32] @fooc() nounwind { > ret i32 0 > } > > Is there really any need to handle these odd cases, where the type of > the value being returned doesn't match the return type of the > function? > > Thanks, > Jay. > <multiple-return.diff> > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reasonably Related Threads
- Authors@R: and Author field
- variable names when using S3 methods
- [LLVMdev] Are there implicit rules or conventions for an llvm frontend to generate llvm IR?
- [LLVMdev] Are there implicit rules or conventions for an llvm frontend to generate llvm IR?
- [RFC] Clean up the way we store optional Function data