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? -Chris _______________________________________________ llvm-commits mailing list llvm-commits@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
