search for: intpart

...value" 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() %intpart = getaggregatevalue {int, float} %Agg, uint 0 [insert 200 instructions here] %floatpart = getaggregatevalue {int, float} %Agg, uint 1 What about a downstream IR manipulation turning that into: %Agg = call {int, float} %foo() %intpart = getaggregatevalue {int, float} %Agg, uint 0...

> 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

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