[LLVMdev] C embedded extensions and LLVM
christopher.lamb at gmail.com
Wed Nov 14 01:30:58 PST 2007
On Nov 12, 2007, at 11:38 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
>>> In an ideal world, we'll just need flags on load/
>>> store nodes because the pointer registers will already be lowered to
>>> some other regclass.
>> I assume malloc's and memcpy's would need them as well?
> Yeah, seems likely. I think malloc gets lowered in SDISel to a call
> though, so maybe it doesn't need it. I'm not sure what "malloc from
> alternate address space" really means though. There can only be one
> function named "malloc" :).
That's true. I guess I was thinking of "intrinsic" overloading, but
you can't really do that based on return type, can you! Well, you
could, but it'd be odd.
> Maybe LangRef should explicitly ban the
> malloc instruction from returning a pointer to an alternate address
Yes. I think that, in embedded C parlance, malloc should always
return a pointer to the generic address space. If casting that
pointer to another address space is valid given the target's rules,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev