On Feb 6, 2008, at 10:25 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: >>>> >>>> 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. >> >> Attaching this to the Function node went smoothly enough, but I >> actually need it on the Return node, which it appears isn't >> supported in the current IR, but is in the the machine-level RET >> node. I could transfer the info from the Function node to the RET >> node at some point, or even reference the Function node from the >> code that handles RET I suppose, but it seems cleaner to change the >> IR; which would break binary compatibility. Considering that this >> works as is and is not all that important to begin with, I'm >> thinking it's best to wait until we can change the IR and do it >> right. Thoughts? > > From the current SelectionDAG you can get a pointer to the Function > object, which should have the attribute. Lowering for an ISD::RET > can thus getting it from following this chain,
I know, I just don't think that's the right way to do it. _______________________________________________ llvm-commits mailing list llvm-commits@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
