similar to: [LLVMdev] Calling Conventions

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

Dale, > I see. Could we please change its name then? fastcc? > The .ll file uses > x86_fastcallcc for fastcall, for an additional level of confusion. It was made intentionally to outline the target-specific nature of CC. -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov. Faculty of Mathematics & Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University.

On 5 Oct 2007, at 20:00, Dale Johannesen wrote: >>> I am not to sure on that. because that would make modules compiled >>> with the flag on incompatible with ones compiled without the flag >>> off >>> as stack behaviour would mismatch. >>> It would be no problem to make the behaviour dependent on the -tail- >>> call-opt flag. i am not sure

On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, Arnold Schwaighofer wrote: >> to me like llvm-gcc honors that. Certainly it should. > > This would imply one fastcc abi (callee pops args on return) to rule > them all? > That is only if fastcall translates to llvm fastcc of course. fastcall != fastcc. fastcall is a well defined convention on x86 that has very specific ABI requirements. fastcc, on the

Functions with __attribute__((fastcall)) pop their arguments and take up to two arguments in ecx and edx. Currently we represent them by just setting the x86_fastcallcc calling convention. The problem is that the ABI has some strange conventions on when a register is used or not. For example: void __attribute__((fastcall)) foo1(int y); will take 'y' in ecx, but struct S1 { int x; };

Two related questions. This is with LLVM 2.4 doing a JIT compile to x86-64. (I generate LLVM IR using an IRBuilder instance, compile/optimize, and then call getPointerToFunction() to get a "native" function pointer.) (1) My reading of various mailing list messages seems to indicate that a function marked as using the "fastcc" 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

Personally, I'd love to see a setup where instead of LLVM implementing each calling convention and ABI hack, we provide a means of actually describing this. Specifically, I'd love to see a design for how to specify in the IR which register(s) (if any register(s)) a particular value should be placed into. Don't get me wrong, I don't have any good ideas about how to do this, I'm

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

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

On Mar 2, 2010, at 5:33 PM, David Terei wrote: > Hi all, > > As previously mentioned on this list the Haskell compiler GHC has a new LLVM based back-end. The back-end needs a new calling convention to efficiently use LLVM and that is what this patch does, just for X86 at the moment. Nice, > The GHC developers would love to get this included in LLVM so that we don't need to

OK, new patch attached. Hopefully in time for 2.7. Chris Lattner wrote: > 1) is the GHC calling conv intended to be target specific? If it is x86 specific, it should get an X86 prefix. If not, it should move up to be #10 after Cold. No its intended to be supported on any platforms that GHC is supported on, which is just x86 and SPARC at the moment. At the moment I've just done X86, will

Hi, I'm trying to run the following module in lli on LLVM 2.6, Windows/MSVS 2008, 32 bits memory model: --- declare x86_stdcallcc i8* @GetStdHandle(i32) define i32 @main() { %handle = call i8* @GetStdHandle(i32 -11) ret i32 0 } --- (This small modules that just retrieve the handle to stdout using WIN32 API). I'm converting it to bytecode using: llvm-as.exe -f

On Sep 24, 2007, at 2:25 AM, Arnold Schwaighofer wrote: > > On 24 Sep 2007, at 09:18, Evan Cheng wrote: >> +; RUN: llvm-as < %s | llc -march=x86 -mattr=+sse2 -stats -info- >> output-file - | grep asm-printer | grep 9 >> +; change preceeding line form ... | grep 8 to ..| grep 9 since >> +; with new fastcc has std call semantics causing a stack adjustment >>

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 modules compiled with the flag on incompatible with ones compiled without the flag off as

On 24 Sep 2007, at 09:18, Evan Cheng wrote: > +; RUN: llvm-as < %s | llc -march=x86 -mattr=+sse2 -stats -info- > output-file - | grep asm-printer | grep 9 > +; change preceeding line form ... | grep 8 to ..| grep 9 since > +; with new fastcc has std call semantics causing a stack adjustment > +; after the function call > > Not sure if I understand this. Can you illustrate

Albert Graef wrote: > Jeff Kuskin wrote: >> Correct? If not, how do I call a LLVM JIT-generated fastcc function >> from a function statically compiled by GCC? > > Well, you can always generate a little wrapper function with C calling > convention which just calls the fastcc function. > I use the fastcall convention all the time. LLVM-jitted code calling GCC-compile

Begin forwarded message: > From: Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> > Date: 11 September 2007 19:26:39 GMT+02:00 > To: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] RFC: Tail call optimization X86 > Reply-To: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > > Hi Arnold, > > Thanks for the patch. Some questions

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

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Jeff Kuskin <jk500500 at yahoo.com> wrote: > Two related questions. > (2) Why does the x86-64 JIT backend generate a "ret $0x8" instruction > to return from a fastcc function that is (a) marked as fastcc > (CallingConv::Fast); but (b) takes no arguments and returns 'void'? fastcc generated code ends with this: > c20800