erichkeane marked an inline comment as done. erichkeane added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/TargetInfo.cpp:2980 - return (Ty->isPromotableIntegerType() ? ABIArgInfo::getExtend(Ty) - : ABIArgInfo::getDirect()); + if (!Ty->isExtIntType()) + return (Ty->isPromotableIntegerType() ? ABIArgInfo::getExtend(Ty) ---------------- rjmccall wrote: > erichkeane wrote: > > rjmccall wrote: > > > Presumably *some* `ExtInt` types should be returned directly. > > Right, and they are. This is only for cases where we request an 'indirect > > result', so cases where we've already decided that it cannot be passed > > direct. > > > > At this point, the 'classify' step has already been done, which would have > > decided that <=128 bit values are passed 'direct', and we've requested an > > indirect. At least as far as I can tell from this code/debugging. > Oh, I see. So the current code is intentionally using a direct IR return in > some cases and then allowing LLVM to lower it as an indirect return? I > didn't think we ever did that, and I'm really not sure it's a good idea, so I > definitely agree with not doing it for ExtInt types. Right, exactly :) FWIW, this is my 3rd time looking into this TargetInfo code, and it is particularly convoluted. If I understood the calling conventions sufficiently, I'd take a run at trying to figure out how to make this not so messy. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D78785/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D78785 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
