similar to: [LLVMdev] [PATCH] New calling convention for use by GHC

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

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

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 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

Hi Duncan, > const unsigned* > ARMBaseRegisterInfo::getCalleeSavedRegs(const MachineFunction *MF) const { > + bool ghcCall = false; > + > + if (MF) { > + const Function *F = MF->getFunction(); > + ghcCall = (F ? F->getCallingConv() == CallingConv::GHC : false); > + } > This bit looks dubious. Why do you need to do it? What exactly? We need

Hi Duncan, On 10/14/11 03:56 PM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Karel, > >> > const unsigned* >> > ARMBaseRegisterInfo::getCalleeSavedRegs(const MachineFunction *MF) >> const { >> > + bool ghcCall = false; >> > + >> > + if (MF) { >> > + const Function *F = MF->getFunction(); >> > + ghcCall = (F ? F->getCallingConv() ==

ola, ive been looking at adding support for an -msave-args option for use on x86_64. the short explanation of it is that it makes x86_64 function prologues store their register arguments on the stack. the purpose of this is to make the arguments trivially accessible for things like stack traces with arguments. as per https://blogs.oracle.com/sherrym/entry/obtaining_function_arguments_on_amd64,

Hi Karel, >>> > const unsigned* >>> > ARMBaseRegisterInfo::getCalleeSavedRegs(const MachineFunction *MF) >>> const { >>> > + bool ghcCall = false; >>> > + >>> > + if (MF) { >>> > + const Function *F = MF->getFunction(); >>> > + ghcCall = (F ? F->getCallingConv() == CallingConv::GHC : false);

Hi Karel, > > const unsigned* > > ARMBaseRegisterInfo::getCalleeSavedRegs(const MachineFunction *MF) const { > > + bool ghcCall = false; > > + > > + if (MF) { > > + const Function *F = MF->getFunction(); > > + ghcCall = (F ? F->getCallingConv() == CallingConv::GHC : false); > > + } > > > This bit looks dubious. Why do you

Hello, today is the last day[1] when someone might ask for feature merge into the LLVM 3.0 release. I'd like to ask you to merge attached patch. This is implementation of GHC calling convention on ARM platform which is made by Stephen Blackheath with few additions by me. I hope that although the patch does not contain any test case, it still will be merged. The reason for this is that

LLVM code base seems to be full of base/interface classes, which have methods like virtual SDValue LowerCall(SDValue Chain, SDValue Callee, CallingConv::ID CallConv, bool isVarArg, bool &isTailCall, const SmallVectorImpl<ISD::OutputArg> &Outs, const SmallVectorImpl<SDValue> &OutVals, const

How do you get a tail call using the OCaml's LLVM API? -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e

Not sure who owns this bit of code, so sending this to the general list. It looks like there may be an unintentional fall through happening in the X86RegisterInfo::getCallPreservedMask function. http://llvm.org/docs/doxygen/html/X86RegisterInfo_8cpp_source.html case CallingConv::Intel_OCL_BI

*Vivek Pandya* On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 10:02 AM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at gmail.com> wrote: > > > *Vivek Pandya* > > > On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> > wrote: > >> >> On May 10, 2016, at 6:06 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: >> >> >> >>

Yes there is also MachineRegisterInfo::UsedPhysRegMask which should be the union of all regmasks in the function. > On May 11, 2016, at 10:47 AM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > From: "Matthias Braun" <matze at braunis.de> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "vivek pandya"

> On May 11, 2016, at 3:31 AM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > From: "vivek pandya" <vivekvpandya at gmail.com> > To: "Mehdi Amini" <mehdi.amini at apple.com> > Cc: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "Quentin Colombet" <qcolombet at apple.com>, "llvm-dev"

The patch is against revision 42247. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tailcall-src.patch Type: application/octet-stream Size: 62639 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20070923/4770302f/attachment.obj>

*Vivek Pandya* On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > ------------------------------ > > *From: *"vivek pandya" <vivekvpandya at gmail.com> > *To: *"Mehdi Amini" <mehdi.amini at apple.com> > *Cc: *"Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "Quentin Colombet" < > qcolombet at

----- Original Message ----- > From: "vivek pandya" <vivekvpandya at gmail.com> > To: "Matthias Braun" <matze at braunis.de> > Cc: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "llvm-dev" > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 1:14:07 PM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [GSoC 2016] Interprocedural Register