[LLVMdev] Troubling promotion of return value to Integer ...
evan.cheng at apple.com
Thu Jun 5 23:33:46 PDT 2008
On Jun 4, 2008, at 11:12 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:
> 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?
Well, you suggested sext / zext from i8 / i16. Why not from i1 (useful
for denoting boolean type) or any arbitrary type?
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
More information about the llvm-dev