>>> 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.
Why not? -Chris _______________________________________________ llvm-commits mailing list llvm-commits@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
