Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "recursiveresolvetyp".
Did you mean:
recursiveresolvetypes
2009 Oct 05
2
[LLVMdev] Linker Question
...mple, looking
at the ValueMap in the linker one would expect a Function to map to a
Function. That's not true here. A Function maps to a bitcast. It also
means the generated code will be suboptimal on targets like x86-64 that
require extra processing for vararg calls.
This happens because RecursiveResolveTypes in LinkModules.cpp doesn't
understand that a "more fully specified" function argument list is compatible
with a "less fully specified" one and that it should be perfectly fine to
resolve the type to the more specified one.
Would it break things horribly if I went in an...
2009 Oct 05
0
[LLVMdev] Linker Question
...a Function to map to a
> Function. That's not true here. A Function maps to a bitcast. It
> also
> means the generated code will be suboptimal on targets like x86-64
> that
> require extra processing for vararg calls.
Yep, it's pretty ugly.
> This happens because RecursiveResolveTypes in LinkModules.cpp doesn't
> understand that a "more fully specified" function argument list is
> compatible
> with a "less fully specified" one and that it should be perfectly
> fine to
> resolve the type to the more specified one.
>
> Would it br...
2009 Oct 05
2
[LLVMdev] Linker Question
On Monday 05 October 2009 17:21, Chris Lattner wrote:
> > Would it break things horribly if I went in and taught
> > RecursiveResolveTypes
> > how to handle this or would that violate some deep-level assumption?
>
> This is intentional, but instcombine should clean it up. Are you not
> seeing this? If not, instcombine should be improved.
The problem is I need to examine this before instcombine and do various
nefar...