search for: customcallingconventions

...dcall, ..) will > sooner or later be needed for Windows, ELF visibility would be nice, and > things like packed/aligned are often required when talking to the OS > or some other library. The is a plan to add calling conventions to llvm functions. See: http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/CustomCallingConventions.txt If you are interested in tackling this it, it would be a great contribution to LLVM! > Even if llvm basically does ignore any "unsupported" attributes the > CWriter could still use a number of them without major changes. This will limit the C backend's portability. We wo...

...rete location and everything else is managed by the compiler (saving into the stack, getting result parameters, etc.) depending on the language's calling conventions. In LLVM there's just one way to transfer control, and the only proposal I've seen (http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/CustomCallingConventions.txt) keeps this high level. What are the difficulties in having low level transfer control operations, with explicitly managed arguments, saving registers, etc? Well, that's all for now. Thanks in advance, Marc Ordinas i Llopis | Tragnarion Studios

Hi, Is there any way to support either stack branching or heap-allocated stack frames in llvm? What I am after is non-preemptive threading support (as in Modsim, but I have also written a small library in asm to allow this in C), where a function can "suspend" itself and resume execution later. I was excited to find llvm as I thought it would be an excellent back end for a language

...;call' instruction that abstracts the target machine's calling convention. See http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/docs/LangRef.html#i_call for more information. > In LLVM there's just one way to transfer control, and > the only proposal I've seen > (http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/CustomCallingConventions.txt) keeps > this high level. This is to have more options for calling conventions that may be specified for a target that are non-standard. Mostly these are optimizations (i.e., some registers do not need to be saved if calling a particular library routine, etc.). > What are the difficul...

...dent from the target as possible. In particular, a front-end for a type safe language should be able to produce a type-safe module that works on all targets. > In LLVM there's just one way to transfer control, and the only proposal > I've seen > (http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/CustomCallingConventions.txt) keeps > this high level. What are the difficulties in having low level transfer > control operations, with explicitly managed arguments, saving registers, > etc? I'm not sure what it is that you are trying to do. The abstraction provided by the call instruction is good for the o...