Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "2086e901".
Did you mean:
20060901
2008 May 30
2
[LLVMdev] Troubling promotion of return value to Integer ...
...sing only slower code, not miscompilation)?
Gr.
Matthijs
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20080530/2086e901/attachment.sig>
2008 May 29
0
[LLVMdev] Troubling promotion of return value to Integer ...
> On further reflection, I actually like the idea of adding 4 attributes
> better than adding knowledge of "int" into TargetData. "int" is a C
> notion that doesn't really belong in TargetData, and it is better for
> the optimizers to have the front-end expose the implicit promotions.
This is very true and indeed applicable to this problem...
So I have to
2008 May 29
4
[LLVMdev] Troubling promotion of return value to Integer ...
On May 28, 2008, at 11:53 AM, <Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com> <Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com
> wrote:
>> Ok. We already have this, with the 'signext' attribute. This code:
>>
>> signed char g();
>> signed char foo(){
>> return g();
>> }
>>
>> compiles into:
>>
>> define i8 @foo() signext nounwind {