Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "lowertailcallto".
2008 Jan 02
2
[LLVMdev] x86 calling conventions refactoring
...LowerCCCArguments
was in order to facilitate review (otherwise the diff would contain no
useful deltas), but it should go back where it belongs afterwards.
LowerX86_64CCCCallTo and LowerX86_64CCCCallTo were consolidated with
LowerCCCCallTo.
I haven't yet tackled merging LowerCCCCallTo and LowerTailCallTo.
There net savings is 405 LOC.
I'd appreciate tests on Windows and x86-64 hosts, since some of the
logic was rather convoluted.
— Gordon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20080101/bce074...
2008 Jan 03
0
[LLVMdev] x86 calling conventions refactoring
...r to facilitate review (otherwise the
> diff would contain no useful deltas), but it should go back where it
> belongs afterwards.
> • LowerX86_64CCCCallTo and LowerX86_64CCCCallTo were consolidated
> with LowerCCCCallTo.
> • I haven't yet tackled merging LowerCCCCallTo and LowerTailCallTo.
>
> There net savings is 405 LOC.
>
> I'd appreciate tests on Windows and x86-64 hosts, since some of the
> logic was rather convoluted.
This rebases this patch to r45536 (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20071231/056756.html
) and I also finished...