On Jul 31, 2007, at 3:08 PM, Evan Cheng wrote: >>> Also, isn't the static chain register described in >>> X86CallingConv.td? >> >> It is, but it's hard to use here. The problem is that when >> lowering the >> init.trampoline intrinsic you only have a pointer to the target >> function. >> From this pointer you would like to find out which register a certain >> parameter will be passed in for that function. Not so easy! It's >> like >> having a call instruction without having the arguments. In order to >> exploit X86CallingConv.td, you have to use all the lowering >> machinery, >> which isn't adapted to this case. For example, you could try to >> synthesize >> a fake call. Or you could pretend to be lowering the target >> function. I >> tried it, and it can be done with a lot of horrible hacking. But >> it's not >> worth it. It's much simpler to simply grab the calling convention >> and use >> that, which unfortunately means keeping LowerTRAMPOLINE and >> X86CallingConv.td in sync. Personally I can live with that, >> especially since >> I've seen the alternative and it still wakes me up screaming at >> night :) >> But maybe you can see a reasonable way of doing it? > > Seems like a deficiency in CCState class. Chris, your thoughts?
Isn't the argument always a pointer, and thus always the same thing for a particular calling conv? -Chris _______________________________________________ llvm-commits mailing list llvm-commits@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
