[LLVMdev] [llvm] r181753 - This is the first of three patches which creates stubs used for

Reed Kotler rkotler at mips.com
Wed May 15 11:36:24 PDT 2013

Hi Jim,

There is no "target independent" code in these patches. It's all Mips 

There is something I'm proposing for AP/NO_APP wrappers but that will 
just  make the stubs look nicer (without the clutter of those wrappers).
That is purely a cosmetic issue of the .s files being produced.

The discussion has moved back to the main thread so I'll continue there.

Thanks for taking to make a detailed answer.


On 05/15/2013 10:30 AM, Jim Grosbach wrote:
> On May 14, 2013, at 4:28 PM, Doug Gilmore
> <Doug.Gilmore-1AXoQHu6uovQT0dZR+AlfA at public.gmane.org
> <mailto:Doug.Gilmore-1AXoQHu6uovQT0dZR+AlfA at public.gmane.org>> wrote:
>>> Hi
>>> Hi Reed,
>>> I’m confused. There have been multiple very strong objections to
>>> having the compiler generate inline asm nodes like this. Did I miss
>>> the discussion where that got resolved?
>>> -Jim
>> Hi Jim,
>> I went along with this approach of using inline asm generation since
>> it allowed us to generate optimal code for the stub functions.
>> The functions being called contain very little code so it is important
>> to generate these stub functions as efficiently as possible.
>> Having this functionality working sooner rather than later speeds up
>> testing since tracking down regressions using only soft-float can be
>> very time consuming.  We would really like to attend to the test-suite
>> regressions so that we start getting clean test-suite runs from our
>> build-bots for MIPS16.
>> Do you think we really need to pull and rework the code?  Or can we
>> put a FIXME comment in the code and attend to it after we fix all of
>> the MIPS16 test-suite regressions?
> Hi Doug,
> Thanks for the elaboration on the background. Very helpful for those
> (like me) coming a bit late to the discussion.
> The technical discussion looks to be re-booted and off and going, so
> I’ll save comments on that aspect for there to avoid forking the
> conversation too horribly badly.
> My question is mainly a process one, anyway. The last I saw the
> discussion (mainly in the APP/NOAPP thread), multiple folks had
> expressed significant reservations about the approach. I hadn’t seen
> that discussion come to any conclusions other than Reed expressing
> disagreement, so I was confused when this patch landed, so I wanted to
> check whether I’d just missed part of the conversation. It’s generally
> expected that those sorts of concerns be resolved before a commit
> happens. Otherwise it gets harder and harder to change early decisions,
> even if it’s towards a better design, due to increased layers of code
> depending on the initial patch(es). This is central to how the LLVM
> community works, which is why you see a fairly strong reaction when it’s
> short circuited.
> Now, there’s a very large amount of leeway for code that’s purely in the
> MIPS backend, of course. You guys are the ones maintaining it, so your
> preferences naturally carry more weight than those of us in the peanut
> gallery. If this series of patches were only ever going to touch
> target-specific code, I doubt you’d be seeing anything more than a bit
> of mild distaste and suggestions of alternatives. It’s been expressed,
> however, that there are target-independent changes coming related to
> this patch. That gets those of us responsible for those target
> independent layers more directly involved and concerned. That’s the
> technical aspect of the discussion that needs resolved before this set
> of patches moves too far forward.
> For this specific patch, I’m personally fine with a “FIXME” at the top.
> This patch is in the MIPS backend, so as long as you guys are happy with
> it, that’s what really matters. I personally think there are superior
> solutions, having dealt with many very similar problems in the ARM
> backend for Thumb/ARM interworking, but I’m not the one maintaining this
> code, so that doesn’t matter quite as much. I would request, however,
> that any follow-up patches that touch target-independent code be held
> for the time being until things come to a firmer resolution.
> Thanks,
>    Jim
>>> On May 13, 2013, at 7:00 PM, Reed Kotler <rkotler atmips.com
>>> <http://mips.com/>> wrote:
>>>> Author: rkotler
>>>> Date: Mon May 13 21:00:24 2013
>>>> New Revision: 181753
>>>> URL:http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=181753&view=rev
>>>> Log:
>>>> This is the first of three patches which creates stubs used for
>>>> Mips16/32 floating point interoperability.
>> _______________________________________________
>> llvm-commits mailing list
>> llvm-commits-Tmj1lob9twqVc3sceRu5cw at public.gmane.org
>> <mailto:llvm-commits-Tmj1lob9twqVc3sceRu5cw at public.gmane.org>
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits-Tmj1lob9twqVc3sceRu5cw at public.gmane.org
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list