Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "mrvs".
Did you mean:
movs
2008 Jun 07
0
[LLVMdev] Plans considering first class structs and multiple return values
...only way to really do this is to make all functions
> return a
> struct, possibly of only a single element. This also requires a
> guarantee that
> nothing special happens to the return value as a whole, but only the
> individual elements are accessed through extractvalue.
After MRVs are working really well, I'd like to consider removing the
void type:
http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/EliminatingVoid.txt
This would make it so that calls always return a value, and 'ret'
always takes a value. This would be a nice simplification to the IR I
think.
>
>
&...
2008 Jun 02
2
[LLVMdev] Plans considering first class structs and multiple return values
Hi Dan,
> The requirement to update all callers' call instructions when a callee
> gets a new return value is also present in the current MRV-mechanism
> with getresult. It's not been a problem we've worried about so far.
I didn't mean you can get away without updating your calllers, I'm just saying
it could be a bit easier.
> Can you give some background about
2008 Jun 09
3
[LLVMdev] Plans considering first class structs and multiple return values
...yway, it was just an example.
In practice, just taking whatever the function is returning now, and put that
into a struct together with whatever you want to add and then letting other
passes make something pretty out of the resulting extractvalue/insertvalue
forest will work just fine.
> After MRVs are working really well, I'd like to consider removing the
> void type:
> http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/EliminatingVoid.txt
>
> This would make it so that calls always return a value, and 'ret'
> always takes a value. This would be a nice simplification to the I...