search for: fp_set_result

Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "fp_set_result".

2007 Sep 24
0
[LLVMdev] RFC: Tail call optimization X86
...GetPossiblePreceedingTailCall(SDOperand Chain) { This should be "static"? + + Chain = DAG.getNode( X86ISD::CALL, NodeTys, &Ops[0], Ops.size()); Stylistic nitpick: please merge 2 lines and remove the space after '('. - Chain = DAG.getNode(X86ISD::FP_SET_RESULT, Tys, Ops, 2); - Flag = Chain.getValue(1); + Chain = DAG.getNode(X86ISD::FP_SET_RESULT, Tys, Ops, 2); + Flag = Chain.getValue(1); What happened here? +// Check to see whether the next instruction following the call is a return +// A function is eligible if caller/callee calling co...
2007 Sep 23
2
[LLVMdev] RFC: Tail call optimization X86
The patch is against revision 42247. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tailcall-src.patch Type: application/octet-stream Size: 62639 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20070923/4770302f/attachment.obj>
2007 Sep 24
2
[LLVMdev] RFC: Tail call optimization X86
...> This should be "static"? okay > + > + Chain = DAG.getNode( X86ISD::CALL, > NodeTys, &Ops[0], Ops.size()); > > Stylistic nitpick: please merge 2 lines and remove the space after > '('. okay > - Chain = DAG.getNode(X86ISD::FP_SET_RESULT, Tys, Ops, 2); > - Flag = Chain.getValue(1); > + Chain = DAG.getNode(X86ISD::FP_SET_RESULT, Tys, Ops, 2); > + Flag = Chain.getValue(1); > > What happened here? Ups corrected. > > +// Check to see whether the next instruction following the call is a > return >...
2007 Sep 24
0
[LLVMdev] RFC: Tail call optimization X86
...> > okay >> + >> + Chain = DAG.getNode( X86ISD::CALL, >> NodeTys, &Ops[0], Ops.size()); >> >> Stylistic nitpick: please merge 2 lines and remove the space after >> '('. > okay >> - Chain = DAG.getNode(X86ISD::FP_SET_RESULT, Tys, Ops, 2); >> - Flag = Chain.getValue(1); >> + Chain = DAG.getNode(X86ISD::FP_SET_RESULT, Tys, Ops, 2); >> + Flag = Chain.getValue(1); >> >> What happened here? > Ups corrected. >> >> +// Check to see whether the next instruction followi...