asb added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/CodeGen/CGCall.cpp:1937
+ RetAttrs.addAttribute(llvm::Attribute::ZExt);
+ }
// FALL THROUGH
----------------
rjmccall wrote:
> asb wrote:
> > rjmccall wrote:
> > > I feel like a better design would be to record whether to do a sext or a
> > > zext in the ABIArgInfo. Add getSignExtend and getZeroExtend static
> > > functions to ABIArgInfo and make getExtend a convenience function that
> > > takes a QualType and uses its signedness.
> > I could see how that might be cleaner, but that's a larger refactoring
> > that's going to touch a lot more code. Are you happy for this patch to
> > stick with this more incremental change (applying the same sign-extension
> > logic to return values as is used for arguments), and to leave your
> > suggested refactoring for a future patch?
> I won't insist that you do it, but I don't think this refactor would be as
> bad as you think. Doing these refactors incrementally when we realize that
> the existing infrastructure is failing us in some way is how we make sure
> they actually happen. Individual contributors rarely have any incentive to
> ever do that "future patch".
I've submitted this refactoring in D41999.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D40023
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
