similar to: [LLVMdev] questions about byval argument passing

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Akira Hatanaka <ahatanak at gmail.com> wrote: > Suppose this structure is passed by value to a function foo(struct S1), > > struct S1 { >  int i0; >  float f0; >  double d0; >  long long l0; > }; > > and the ABI dictates the elements of the structure are copied to both > integer and floating pointer argument registers in the

On 4 January 2018 at 17:10, Daniel Sanders via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> On 3 Jan 2018, at 14:00, Alex Bradbury via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I haven't dug into the GlobalISel calling convention code much but I can comment on the MipsCCState. Thanks for the insight Daniel, much appreciated. >> * MipsCCState: adds bool

> On 4 Jan 2018, at 10:51, Alex Bradbury <asb at lowrisc.org> wrote: > > On 4 January 2018 at 17:10, Daniel Sanders via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> On 3 Jan 2018, at 14:00, Alex Bradbury via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> I haven't dug into the GlobalISel calling convention code much but I can comment on the

Hi, There are some generated Sparc assembly code like this: main: ! @main ! BB#0: save %sp, -112, %sp sethi 0, %l0 or %g0, 5, %l1 st %l0, [%fp+-4] st %l1, [%fp+-8] st %l1, [%fp+-12] sethi %hi(.L.str), %l1 ld [%fp+-8], %o1 add %l1, %lo(.L.str), %l1 or %g0, %l1, %o0 call printf nop ld [%fp+-12], %o2 ld [%fp+-8], %l2 sethi %hi(.L.strQ521), %l3 add

I haven't dug into the GlobalISel calling convention code much but I can comment on the MipsCCState. > On 3 Jan 2018, at 14:00, Alex Bradbury via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > This question came about through reviewing work from Leslie Zhai on GlobalISel > support for RISC-V, which also motivated me to revisit code which I've always > felt was a

Hello. I have been trying to check, how llvm works on Solaris recently. First I have tested lli, whitch seems to execute the bytecode generated on Linux without any problems. However, llc has failed to generate valid SPARC assembler code even on the helloworld example. Here is the generated code: sakharov at trillian:~$ cat ./test.s .text .align 16 .globl main

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > More nitpicks: > ... > No need for else here. :-) Done > SPDiff = (int)CallerMinReservedArea - (int)ParamSize; > > Just change last statement to > int SPDiff = (int)... Done > > +bool > +PPCTargetLowering::IsEligibleForTailCallOptimization(SDOperand Call, > +

Hello! I'v downloaded speex lib 1.1.11.1. I am trying to port speex lib to Blackfin processor. I am using VisualDSP++ 4.0. If I am compiling source codes with using floating point everything ok. When I am compiling with FIXED_POINT defined everything's ok and code works about two times faster. But when I am defining BFIN_ASM I am getting several compiling errors in Blackfin assembler

Hi Robert, > I tried adding to the XCoreCallingConv.td: > CCIfByVal<CCPassByVal<0,4>> // pushes pointer to the stack This looks sensible to me. After that it comes down to cooperation between XCoreISelLowering's LowerFormalArguments and LowerCall functions. LowerFormalArguments is at the beginning of a function and is responsible for taking arguments out of

Hi - help! I have read through previous threads on the subject of 'byval' e.g. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/llvm-dev/Exact$20meaning$20of$20byval/llvm-dev/cyRZyXcMCNI https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/llvm-dev/$20byval/llvm-dev/uk4uiK93jeM https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/llvm-dev/byval/llvm-dev/46Tv0lSRwBg and read through code

Hi Tim, Thank you for the input. I think I follow you. I believe the LowerCall is doing what it needs to do - passing pointer either on the stack or in register as per ABI. The LowerFormalArguments() is where I am stuck. LowerFormalArguments () calls CCInfo.AnalyzeFormalArguments(Ins, CC_XCore), which calls the CC_XCore(). This is where I placed the CCIfByVal<CCPassByVal<0,4>> which

> what does "refuses to compile" mean? I.e. what error do you get? > Specifically I get this message when compiling with the default -mattr: Call result #2 has unhandled type i32 UNREACHABLE executed at CallingConvLower.cpp:162! 0 llc 0x0000000100a1e115 PrintStackTrace(void*) + 38 1 llc 0x0000000100a1e6d0 SignalHandler(int) + 254 2

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

Hi, > I believe the LowerCall is doing what it needs to do - passing pointer either on the stack or in register as per ABI. >From very quick test-cases with no understanding of XCore, that looks plausible. > LowerFormalArguments () calls CCInfo.AnalyzeFormalArguments(Ins, CC_XCore), which calls the CC_XCore(). > This is where I placed the CCIfByVal<CCPassByVal<0,4>>

This question came about through reviewing work from Leslie Zhai on GlobalISel support for RISC-V, which also motivated me to revisit code which I've always felt was a bit clunky. Calling convention lowering in LLVM is typically handled by functions conforming to the CCAssignFn typedef: typedef bool CCAssignFn(unsigned ValNo, MVT ValVT, MVT LocVT,

Hello Jean-Marc, > Got any luck with the Blackfin stuff? One thing I forgot mentioning that > would probably help a lot in narrowing down the bug is to simply disable > assembly functions one by one and see which one breaks Speex. sorry that I didn't reply for some days. Unfortunately I had some other serious problems with my software which are not related to Speex. I hope to solve

Hi, For example consider code: typedef struct tag_instead_ll { int upper; int lower; int otherguys[9]; } instead_ll_t; __attribute__ ((noinline)) int foo (instead_ll_t value); int main(void) { instead_ll_t val; val.upper = 0x12345678; val.lower = 0x9abcdef; return foo(val); } On the entrance of my LowerCall function, IR looks like: *** IR Dump After Machine Function Analysis

On Feb 12, 2009, at 6:21 PM, Sandeep Patel wrote: > Although it's not generally needed for ARM's use of CCCustom, I return > two bools to handle the four possible outcomes to keep the mechanism > flexible: > > * if CCCustomFn handled the arg or not > * if CCCustomFn wants to end processing of the arg or not +/// CCCustomFn - This function assigns a location for Val,

Hi Tim, I may be missing something but using CCPassByVal is moving the pointer onto the stack - not what I'm after. I need to add an operation to the function prolog that actually makes a copy of the pointed to data. It is the responsibility of the callee to make the copy, not the caller - hence my trouble. (currently the callee can corrupt the original data viz pass-by-reference!) This

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > > On Feb 12, 2009, at 6:21 PM, Sandeep Patel wrote: > >> Although it's not generally needed for ARM's use of CCCustom, I return >> two bools to handle the four possible outcomes to keep the mechanism >> flexible: >> >> * if CCCustomFn handled the arg or not >>