On Nov 8, 2007, at 10:05 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=43918&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Rewrite Dwarf number handling per review comments.
>
> Hi Dale,
>
> I'm pretty uncomfortable with this, because it means that we're tying
> down the register order.
I tend to agree, but both comments I got on this patch suggested the
table approach.
Actually the more I look at other people's suggestions the more I
like my original patch (43844).
Compared to your suggestion below, that has 2 switches instead of 3
and the switches
are smaller, and it's also proof against reordering of registers.
What do you think of that one?
> How about something like:
>
> if (Darwin32) {
> switch (RegNo) {
> case X86::AL: case X86::AH: case X86::AX: return 0;
> case X86::EDI: ...
> } else if (darwin64) {
> switch (RegNo) {
> ...
> } else {
> }
>
> That way we don't break EH/debug info if registers are reordered or
> added in the future.
>
> -Chris
>
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits@cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
_______________________________________________
llvm-commits mailing list
llvm-commits@cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
