erichkeane marked 11 inline comments as done.
erichkeane added a comment.
New patch incoming.
> ABataev wrote in ItaniumMangle.cpp:1236-1237
> What if function type is not a FunctionProtoType?
Right, good catch. I looked at Mangle.cpp which does something very similar,
and assumes that FunctionType is a valid cast here, so I've switched this here
too, please let me know if that is a wrong assumption.
> rnk wrote in TargetInfo.cpp:3306
> You might want to defend against dynamic C++ records which will have vtable
> fields.
Hmmm... I'm not sure what behavior would be expected in that case. Also, I
just looked at a bunch of similar 'for' loops for various other reasons, and I
don't really see where that is tested elsewhere (so I don't really see how to,
besides I.isVirtual?). In that case, I would suspect that the class is not put
into a register?
> rnk wrote in TargetInfo.cpp:3742-3743
> 'classify' takes FreeSSERegs by reference and modifies it, so are you sure
> this is correct? It means if I have this kind of prototype, we won't pass 'd'
> in registers because we'll consume four registers for the return value:
>
> struct HFA { __m128 f[4]; };
> HFA __regcall f(HFA a, HFA b, HFA c, HFA d) {
> ...
> }
That was my intent, this should allow return values to be in registers as well
if I'm reading the spec correctly. The idea is that register use is 'greedy'.
> rnk wrote in SemaDecl.cpp:8288
> The comment doesn't apply here. Are you sure you don't want some other
> behavior, like unprototyped functions are actually implicitly void when
> regcall is used, as in C++?
I suspect you're right. I am not sure what behavior would be expected, so I
think that reverting to the error case is likely the correct "safe" behavior if
the spec doesn't say otherwise?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D25204
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
