[LLVMdev] Troubling promotion of return value to Integer ...
sabre at nondot.org
Wed Jun 4 11:12:45 PDT 2008
On Jun 4, 2008, at 10:52 AM, Evan Cheng wrote:
> On May 29, 2008, at 10:30 AM, Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com wrote:
>> 4) There will be 4 new function attributes:
>> sign_ext_from_i8, sign_ext_from_i16
>> zero_ext_from_i8, zero_ext_from_i16
>> These attributes will be placed on the function CALL node by
>> to inform the backend about such promotions and enable optimization
>> return value. This should be sufficient for direct and indirect
>> (syntax of these attributes to be defined)
> Should we go one step further and provide an attribute whose value is
> the "original type" before the extension?
What would that mean? Can you give an example?
More information about the llvm-dev