Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "getaggregatevalue".
2007 Nov 06
1
[LLVMdev] Passing and returning aggregates (who is responsible for the ABI?)
...on is that all the values
must be first-class. But what is "first class" actually depends on
the hardware and ABI. An i64, for instance, is first class on 64-bit
CPUs, but not on 32-bit CPUs. Is the following legal on a 32-bit target?
declare i64 @foo(i128, i256)
> The "getaggregatevalue" is a localized hack to work
> around this for the few cases that return multiple values.
As a matter of fact, what annoys me the most with the
getaggregatevalue proposal is precisely that it does not seem too
localized to me. What about:
%Agg = call {int, float} %foo()
%intpa...
2007 Nov 06
0
[LLVMdev] Passing and returning aggregates (who is responsible for the ABI?)
> I'm trying to port the XL compiler (http://xlr.sf.net) to use the
> LLVM back-end. So far, little trouble doing so. But there is one
> aspect of the semantics of the LLVM IR that surprises me. Why are the
> call, declare and define "halfway through" ABI conventions?
Hrm?
> I think it's the right thing to have a single high level node for
> each call, as
2007 Nov 06
4
[LLVMdev] Passing and returning aggregates (who is responsible for the ABI?)
Hello,
I'm trying to port the XL compiler (http://xlr.sf.net) to use the
LLVM back-end. So far, little trouble doing so. But there is one
aspect of the semantics of the LLVM IR that surprises me. Why are the
call, declare and define "halfway through" ABI conventions?
I think it's the right thing to have a single high level node for
each call, as opposed to separate