On Feb 5, 2008, at 2:34 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Feb 5, 2008, at 2:31 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote: >>> I think the calling convention stuff that Evan has been working on >>> is >>> powerful enough to model though sort of stuff, but might need minor >>> extensions. Do you think it would be reasonable do use this >>> approach? Doing so would eliminate a "magic" calling convention, >>> which would be nice :) >> >> It would, but coercing standard types to a different type strikes me >> as worse. >> The IR really ought to be able to handle standard types without >> obfuscation. > > I don't think it would be a problem in this specific case, but I > understand what you mean. > >> What I really wanted was to put InReg on the return value. > > Ah, that's a good idea. Why not do that? :) Generally, putting the > attribute on argument "#0" means that the attribute applies to the > function or the return value. Given that 'inreg' doesn't make any > sense for a function, it would be fine to overload it for this, what > do you think?
Sound good if it's that simple. It looked more complicated, but I was probably missing something. I'll look again. _______________________________________________ llvm-commits mailing list llvm-commits@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
