similar to: [LLVMdev] Adding a custom calling convention

On 20/02/2008, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Raja Mukherji wrote: > > Hi all, > > I was wondering what the best way of adding a custom calling convention in llvm? > > It is quite easy to add custom calling conventions. Check out how the > various x86 fastcall, stdcall, etc things are handled. Am I correct in thinking that it's

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Raja Mukherji wrote: > Hi all, > I was wondering what the best way of adding a custom calling convention in llvm? It is quite easy to add custom calling conventions. Check out how the various x86 fastcall, stdcall, etc things are handled. > In particular, for the x86 platform, I want: > > on entry > > esi = size of argument block > edi = address of

Hi! I have discovered a problem with LLVM's interpretation of the Win64 calling convention w.r.t. passing of aggregates as arguments. The following code is part of my host application that is compiled with Visual Studio 2005 in 64-bit debug mode. noise4 expects a structure of four floats as its first and only argument, which is - in accordance with the specs of the Win64 calling convention -

I'm trying to understand the LLVM calling conventions. Coming from a Windows C++ background, I'm familiar with three calling conventions: cdecl, stdcall, and fastcall. It looks like cdecl corresponds to ccc in LLVM, but I'm not sure about the other two. Best Regards, Jon

Hello > I don't know. I feel reluctant to generate different IRs for Win32 and > for Win64. Unfortunately, you should. Think about differences and between _Complex type and struct {double, double}. >From LLVM's point of view these are same types, however many ABIs have special rules for passing / returning _Complex, this is possible to handle in frontend only. > Since the C

On Oct 5, 2007, at 2:42 AM, Arnold Schwaighofer wrote: > Hi Evan, > I incoporated the changes you request but to the following i have got > a question: > >> Also, moving the option >> there will allow us to change fastcc ABI (callee popping arguments) >> only when this option is on. See Chris' email: > > I am not to sure on that. because that would make

I tried the version you used, too. the resulting executable was still broken. I guess the reason is due to fastcall on function pointers, which Clang does not recognize. Consider the following snippet. #include <stdio.h> void __attribute__((fastcall)) f(int i) { printf("%d\n", i); } typedef void (*__attribute__((fastcall)) f_t)(int i); //typedef void

Hello > When compiling this module with llc (Intel assembler syntax) I get the > following code. As you can see, the float4 argument is not passed to > the noise-function by pointer. Instead, noise is treated as if it > expected four individual floats as arguments, which are passed in the > registers XMM0-XMM3. That's correct behaviour. ABI under question is C/C++ ABI and it is

Comments: CheckDAGForTailCallsAndFixThem - 1. for (SelectionDAG::allnodes_iterator BE = DAG.allnodes_begin(), + BI = prior(DAG.allnodes_end()); BI != BE; BI--) { Please use pre-decrement instead of post-decrement. 2. The function is slower than it should be. You are scanning all the nodes in the DAG twice. You should just examine DAG.getRoot() to make determine whether it's a

On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > It is impossible to tell with this amount of detail.  Does it work > correctly if you build with -O0 ? Yes, with -O0 the resulting executable looks fine. --enable-debug actually sets -O0 (otherwise -O2). Clang can build/test php 5.2.9 with either -O0 or -O2, but not for php 5.3RC0 with -O2. I further

What version of clang are you using? It could be a regression between head and the version I used. (some days old) - Anders On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Xi Wang <xi.wang at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: >> It is impossible to tell with this amount of detail.  Does it work >> correctly if you build

Hi Evan, first off thanks to you and Chris for taking time. On 6 Sep 2007, at 00:57, Evan Cheng wrote: > We'd like to see tail call optimization to be similar to the target > independent lowering of ISD::CALL nodes. These are auto-generated > from ???CallingConv.td files. Some target specific details such as > function address register (ECX in your example) should be coded in

When attempting to compile this simple testing tool http://github.com/oneclick/rubyinstaller/blob/fake/resources/tools/fakeruby.c I get the following: C:\Users\Jon\Documents\CDev\sandbox>llvm-gcc -Wall -o fakeruby.exe fakeruby.c Warning: resolving _GetModuleHandleA by linking to _GetModuleHandleA at 4 Use --enable-stdcall-fixup to disable these warnings Use --disable-stdcall-fixup to disable

On Oct 5, 2007, at 10:41 AM, Evan Cheng wrote: > > On Oct 5, 2007, at 2:42 AM, Arnold Schwaighofer wrote: > >> Hi Evan, >> I incoporated the changes you request but to the following i have got >> a question: >> >>> Also, moving the option >>> there will allow us to change fastcc ABI (callee popping arguments) >>> only when this option is

Hi all, I'm working on using LLVM as a back-end for the Haskell GHC compiler. As part of that work I have modified LLVM to include a new custom calling convention for performance reasons as outlined previously in a conversation on this mailing list: http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/GlobalRegisterVariables.txt This custom calling convention on x86-32 needs to handle just 4 parameters,

Hi Arnold, Thanks for the patch. Some questions and commons: 1. Have you test it against the llvm test suite? Does it work if fp elimination optimization is turned off? 2. Please follow llvm coding convention and make sure every line fits in 80 columns. 3. enum NameDecorationStyle { None, StdCall, - FastCall + FastCall, + FastCC // the normal fastcc calling convention }; Why is

I don't remember anything other that what I've written in the bug João has mentioned. Probably something like this patch http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14410#c6 ? 2013/2/20 João Matos <ripzonetriton at gmail.com>: > I think so. There have been other reports lately related to this being > wrong. > > http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14410 > > CC'ing

OK, this is the revised paravirt.h (Andi has seen this before), then the second is the binary patching stuff. More things get added to the paravirt struct in future patches, but this basic stuff hasn't changed for some time. ==== This patch does the dumbest possible replacement of paravirtualized instructions: calls through a "paravirt_ops" structure. Currently these are function

The following patches introduce the core infrastructure needed to paravirtualize the 32-bit x86 Linux kernel. This is done by moving virtualization sensitive insn's or code paths to a function table, paravirt_ops. This structure can be populated with hypervisor specific calls or native stubs and currently support running on bare metal, VMI, Xen, or Lhype. These patches apply to

The following patches introduce the core infrastructure needed to paravirtualize the 32-bit x86 Linux kernel. This is done by moving virtualization sensitive insn's or code paths to a function table, paravirt_ops. This structure can be populated with hypervisor specific calls or native stubs and currently support running on bare metal, VMI, Xen, or Lhype. These patches apply to