similar to: [LLVMdev] [Backend API CHANGE] Calling-convention lowering proposal update

Dan Gohman wrote: > Hello, > > Attached is a patch which significantly reworks how calls, incoming > arguments, and outgoing return values are lowered. It's a major change, > affecting all targets, so I'm looking for feedback on the approach. > > The goal of the patch is to eliminate a bunch of awkward code, > eliminate some unnecessary differences between targets,

On Apr 23, 2009, at 8:09 PM, Dan Gohman wrote: > Attached is a patch which significantly reworks how calls, incoming > arguments, and outgoing return values are lowered. It's a major > change, > affecting all targets, so I'm looking for feedback on the approach. > > The goal of the patch is to eliminate a bunch of awkward code, > eliminate some unnecessary

On Thursday 23 April 2009 22:09, Dan Gohman wrote: > Hello, > > Attached is a patch which significantly reworks how calls, incoming > arguments, and outgoing return values are lowered. It's a major change, > affecting all targets, so I'm looking for feedback on the approach. I don't have specific feedback on this patch but I do have feedback about how we go about

Hi, Dan > The goal of the patch is to eliminate a bunch of awkward code, > eliminate some unnecessary differences between targets, and to > facilitate future refactoring and feature work. I quickly looked over the patch and it seems to be a significant cleanup of all really ugly lowering code! Maybe it will be possible to provide some dummy implementation of LowerFormalArguments /

Hello, Attached is a patch which significantly reworks how calls, incoming arguments, and outgoing return values are lowered. It's a major change, affecting all targets, so I'm looking for feedback on the approach. The goal of the patch is to eliminate a bunch of awkward code, eliminate some unnecessary differences between targets, and to facilitate future refactoring and feature work.

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Apr 30, 2009, at 9:38 AM, David Greene wrote: >> On Wednesday 29 April 2009 19:22, Chris Lattner wrote: >>> On Apr 29, 2009, at 8:39 AM, David Greene wrote: >>>> This patch changes the LLVM API. We should have a process for >>>> deprecating >>>> obsolete interfaces before removing them entirely. It's a

On Wednesday 29 April 2009 19:22, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Apr 29, 2009, at 8:39 AM, David Greene wrote: > > This patch changes the LLVM API. We should have a process for > > deprecating > > obsolete interfaces before removing them entirely. It's a significant > > maintenance headache to pull down a new release and fix all of the API > > issues along with

On May 1, 2009, at 1:15 PM, Andrew Haley wrote: > Evan Cheng wrote: >> On Apr 30, 2009, at 11:27 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: >> >>> Chris Lattner wrote: >>>> On Apr 30, 2009, at 9:38 AM, David Greene wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday 29 April 2009 19:22, Chris Lattner wrote: >>>>>> On Apr 29, 2009, at 8:39 AM, David Greene wrote:

On Apr 29, 2009, at 8:39 AM, David Greene wrote: > > This patch changes the LLVM API. We should have a process for > deprecating > obsolete interfaces before removing them entirely. It's a significant > maintenance headache to pull down a new release and fix all of the API > issues along with tracking down new bugs introduced. No, we make no attempt at being API

>> Attached is a patch which significantly reworks how calls, incoming >> arguments, and outgoing return values are lowered. It's a major change, >> affecting all targets, so I'm looking for feedback on the approach. > > I don't have specific feedback on this patch but I do have feedback about how > we go about making these kinds of changing. > > This

Evan Cheng wrote: > On Apr 30, 2009, at 11:27 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: > >> Chris Lattner wrote: >>> On Apr 30, 2009, at 9:38 AM, David Greene wrote: >>>> On Wednesday 29 April 2009 19:22, Chris Lattner wrote: >>>>> On Apr 29, 2009, at 8:39 AM, David Greene wrote: >>>>>> This patch changes the LLVM API. We should have a process for

On Apr 30, 2009, at 9:38 AM, David Greene wrote: > On Wednesday 29 April 2009 19:22, Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Apr 29, 2009, at 8:39 AM, David Greene wrote: >>> This patch changes the LLVM API. We should have a process for >>> deprecating >>> obsolete interfaces before removing them entirely. It's a >>> significant >>> maintenance

On Apr 30, 2009, at 11:27 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: > Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Apr 30, 2009, at 9:38 AM, David Greene wrote: >>> On Wednesday 29 April 2009 19:22, Chris Lattner wrote: >>>> On Apr 29, 2009, at 8:39 AM, David Greene wrote: >>>>> This patch changes the LLVM API. We should have a process for >>>>> deprecating

Hi, I am developing a backend for an architecture with two diferent sets of registers. The ABI specifies that pointer arguments use one kind of registers while integers use the other one. As LLVM translates pointers to the specified type (i32 in my case), I cannot specify the correct calling convention. I've seen that developing the TriCore backend the same issue appeared. In TriCore

On 2 March 2016 at 19:01, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote: > Also, just a quick question. I’m happy to continue to talk about the actual > design and implementation of LLVM IR on this point, and I’d be happy to > put out the actual patch we’re initially proposing. Obviously, all of this code > needs to go through the normal LLVM/Clang code review processes. But >

2011/5/13 Dan Bailey <drb at dneg.com> > Justin Holewinski wrote: > > On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 5:11 AM, Dan Bailey <drb at dneg.com> wrote: > >> That's fine with me. Unless there's a particular reason for it I would >> suggest perhaps changing the immediate syntax as well to swap it round, so >> it would be Immi32, Immi64, Immf32, etc. It

That's fine with me. Unless there's a particular reason for it I would suggest perhaps changing the immediate syntax as well to swap it round, so it would be Immi32, Immi64, Immf32, etc. It doesn't bother me that much the way it currently is, but when there are lots of operations taking a register and an immediate, representing them in the same way might be a little more

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> Justin Holewinski wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:BANLkTi=Y9EFmWRu-9dQxydq8zTyF7tEbJw@mail.gmail.com"

Hi Kostis, Just to check, did you send the patch originally to llvmdev or llvm-commits? The latter is where all commit review takes place. Cheers, James -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Kostis Sagonas Sent: 02 May 2012 13:16 To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Cc: erllvm at softlab.ntua.gr Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] RFC:

On 1 August 2012 09:17, Karel Gardas <karel.gardas at centrum.cz> wrote: > as far as I know, it's not presented in today's HEAD. If you want it applied, you have to send it to llvm-commits, not here. If you sent it there already, ping the thread that people will respond. -- cheers, --renato http://systemcall.org/