Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "gen_call".
Did you mean:
agentcall
2004 May 05
0
[LLVMdev] Testing LLVM on OS X
...truct.obstack*, %struct.obstack*, %struct.simple_obstack_stack*, int,
int, %struct.machine_function*, %struct.rtx_def*,
%struct.constant_descriptor**, %struct.pool_sym**,
%struct.pool_constant*, %struct.pool_constant*, int }**
%outer_function_chain
WARNING: While resolving call to function 'gen_call_value' arguments
were dropped!
WARNING: While resolving call to function 'gen_call' arguments were
dropped!
WARNING: While resolving call to function 'gen_call_value' arguments
were dropped!
cc1.cbe.c:1560: warning: conflicting types for built-in function
`fprintf'
cc1.c...
2004 May 04
6
[LLVMdev] Testing LLVM on OS X
On Tue, 4 May 2004, Chris Lattner wrote:
> I suspect that a large reason that LLVM does worst than a native C
> compiler with the CBE+GCC is that LLVM generates very low-level C code,
> and I'm not convinced that GCC is doing a very good job (ie, without
> syntactic loops).
Yup, this is EXACTLY what is going on.
I took this very simple C function:
int Array[1000];
void test(int
2004 May 05
2
[LLVMdev] Testing LLVM on OS X
...ct.obstack*, %struct.simple_obstack_stack*, int,
> int, %struct.machine_function*, %struct.rtx_def*,
> %struct.constant_descriptor**, %struct.pool_sym**,
> %struct.pool_constant*, %struct.pool_constant*, int }**
> %outer_function_chain
> WARNING: While resolving call to function 'gen_call_value' arguments
> were dropped!
> WARNING: While resolving call to function 'gen_call' arguments were
> dropped!
> WARNING: While resolving call to function 'gen_call_value' arguments
> were dropped!
> cc1.cbe.c:1560: warning: conflicting types for built-in fu...