search for: mycustomloweringfunc

...CCCustomAction { code <<< EOF ....multi-line C++ code goes here that allocates regs & mem and sets CCValAssign::isCustom.... EOF } Does this seem reasonable? An alternative is for CCCustom to take a string that names a function to be called: CCIfType<[f64], CCCustom<"MyCustomLoweringFunc">> the function signature for such functions will have to return two results: if the CC processing is finished and if it the func succeeded or failed: typedef bool CCCustomFn(unsigned ValNo, MVT ValVT, MVT LocVT, CCValAssign::LocInfo LocInfo,...

...; ....multi-line C++ code goes here that allocates regs & mem and > sets CCValAssign::isCustom.... > EOF > } > > Does this seem reasonable? An alternative is for CCCustom to take a > string that names a function to be called: > > CCIfType<[f64], CCCustom<"MyCustomLoweringFunc">> > > the function signature for such functions will have to return two > results: if the CC processing is finished and if it the func succeeded > or failed: I like the second solution better. It seems rather cumbersome to embed multi-line c++ code in td files. Evan >...

...oes here that allocates regs & mem and >> sets CCValAssign::isCustom.... >> EOF >> } >> >> Does this seem reasonable? An alternative is for CCCustom to take a >> string that names a function to be called: >> >> CCIfType<[f64], CCCustom<"MyCustomLoweringFunc">> >> >> the function signature for such functions will have to return two >> results: if the CC processing is finished and if it the func succeeded >> or failed: > > I like the second solution better. It seems rather cumbersome to embed > multi-line c++...

...p; mem and >>> sets CCValAssign::isCustom.... >>> EOF >>> } >>> >>> Does this seem reasonable? An alternative is for CCCustom to take a >>> string that names a function to be called: >>> >>> CCIfType<[f64], CCCustom<"MyCustomLoweringFunc">> >>> >>> the function signature for such functions will have to return two >>> results: if the CC processing is finished and if it the func >>> succeeded >>> or failed: >> >> I like the second solution better. It seems rather c...

...CCValAssign::isCustom.... >>>> EOF >>>> } >>>> >>>> Does this seem reasonable? An alternative is for CCCustom to take a >>>> string that names a function to be called: >>>> >>>> CCIfType<[f64], CCCustom<"MyCustomLoweringFunc">> >>>> >>>> the function signature for such functions will have to return two >>>> results: if the CC processing is finished and if it the func >>>> succeeded >>>> or failed: >>> >>> I like the second solution...

...>>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> Does this seem reasonable? An alternative is for CCCustom to >>>>> take a >>>>> string that names a function to be called: >>>>> >>>>> CCIfType<[f64], CCCustom<"MyCustomLoweringFunc">> >>>>> >>>>> the function signature for such functions will have to return two >>>>> results: if the CC processing is finished and if it the func >>>>> succeeded >>>>> or failed: >>>> >>>&gt...

...} >>>>>> >>>>>> Does this seem reasonable? An alternative is for CCCustom to >>>>>> take a >>>>>> string that names a function to be called: >>>>>> >>>>>> CCIfType<[f64], CCCustom<"MyCustomLoweringFunc">> >>>>>> >>>>>> the function signature for such functions will have to return two >>>>>> results: if the CC processing is finished and if it the func >>>>>> succeeded >>>>>> or failed: >>>...

...gt;>>>> Does this seem reasonable? An alternative is for CCCustom to >>>>>>>> take a >>>>>>>> string that names a function to be called: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> CCIfType<[f64], CCCustom<"MyCustomLoweringFunc">> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> the function signature for such functions will have to return >>>>>>>> two >>>>>>>> results: if the CC processing is finished and if it the func >>>>>>&g...

...t;> >>>>>>> Does this seem reasonable? An alternative is for CCCustom to >>>>>>> take a >>>>>>> string that names a function to be called: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> CCIfType<[f64], CCCustom<"MyCustomLoweringFunc">> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> the function signature for such functions will have to return >>>>>>> two >>>>>>> results: if the CC processing is finished and if it the func >>>>>>> succeeded &...

On Dec 27, 2008, at 4:30 AM, Sandeep Patel wrote: > Attached is a prototype patch that uses CCState to lower RET nodes in > the ARM target. Lowering CALL nodes will come later. > > This patch does not handle f64 and i64 types. For these types, it > would be ideal to request the conversions below: i64 isn't Legal on ARM, so it should already be handled. > > > def

...em reasonable? An alternative is for CCCustom to >>>>>>>>>> take a >>>>>>>>>> string that names a function to be called: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> CCIfType<[f64], CCCustom<"MyCustomLoweringFunc">> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> the function signature for such functions will have to return >>>>>>>>>> two >>>>>>>>>> results: if the CC processing is finished and if it the...

...gt; Does this seem reasonable? An alternative is for CCCustom to >>>>>>>>> take a >>>>>>>>> string that names a function to be called: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> CCIfType<[f64], CCCustom<"MyCustomLoweringFunc">> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> the function signature for such functions will have to return >>>>>>>>> two >>>>>>>>> results: if the CC processing is finished and if it the func >>&g...

...;>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> take a >>>>>>>>>>>> string that names a function to be called: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> CCIfType<[f64], CCCustom<"MyCustomLoweringFunc">> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> the function signature for such functions will have to >>>>>>>>>>>> return >>>>>>>>>>>> two >>>>>&...

...n alternative is for CCCustom to >>>>>>>>>>> take a >>>>>>>>>>> string that names a function to be called: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> CCIfType<[f64], CCCustom<"MyCustomLoweringFunc">> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> the function signature for such functions will have to return >>>>>>>>>>> two >>>>>>>>>>> results: if the CC processing is finish...

...>>>>>>>>>>>>> take a >>>>>>>>>>>>> string that names a function to be called: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> CCIfType<[f64], CCCustom<"MyCustomLoweringFunc">> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the function signature for such functions will have to >>>>>>>>>>>>> return >>>>>>>>>>>>> two >&gt...

...;>>>>>>>>>> take a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> string that names a function to be called: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CCIfType<[f64], CCCustom<"MyCustomLoweringFunc">> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the function signature for such functions will have to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> return >>>>>>>>>>>>>...

Attached is a prototype patch that uses CCState to lower RET nodes in the ARM target. Lowering CALL nodes will come later. This patch does not handle f64 and i64 types. For these types, it would be ideal to request the conversions below: def RetCC_ARM_APCS : CallingConv<[ CCIfType<[f32], CCBitConvertToType<i32>>, CCIfType<[f64], CCBitConvertToType<i64>>,

...;>>>>>>> take a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string that names a function to be called: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CCIfType<[f64], CCCustom<"MyCustomLoweringFunc">> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the function signature for such functions will have to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return >>>>>>>>>>...

...;>>>> take a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string that names a function to be called: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CCIfType<[f64], CCCustom<"MyCustomLoweringFunc">> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the function signature for such functions will have to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return >>>>>>>...

...>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string that names a function to be called: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CCIfType<[f64], CCCustom<"MyCustomLoweringFunc">> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the function signature for such functions will have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>&...