[PATCH] D79118: Implement _ExtInt ABI for all ABIs in Clang, enable type for ABIs
John McCall via Phabricator via cfe-commits
cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org
Tue May 5 10:14:31 PDT 2020
rjmccall added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/TargetInfo.cpp:4938
+ if (EIT->getNumBits() > 128)
+ return getNaturalAlignIndirect(Ty, /*ByVal=*/true);
+
----------------
erichkeane wrote:
> rjmccall wrote:
> > rjmccall wrote:
> > > erichkeane wrote:
> > > > rjmccall wrote:
> > > > > Does this need to consider the aggregate-as-array logic below?
> > > > I'm not sure what you mean by this? Are you suggesting I could/should pass this as an array instead of indirectly?
> > > My interpretation is that in general you're lowering large a `_ExtInt` like a struct with a bunch of integer members in it. My understanding is that, for this target, that would make it a homogeneous aggregate eligible for the special treatment given to certain aggregate types below. I don't know what that corresponds to at the code-emission level.
> > This seems to work, although it's unfortunate that it duplicates some of the existing behavior. Do we also need to modify `isHomogeneousAggregate` to consider `ExtInts`? And if we do, does that avoid any of the duplicate logic here?
> I think doing that would result in altering a number of other targets as well (thats not a PPC specific function I think?).
>
> While there IS a little duplication, it is just the 5 lines that calculates the array and coerces it. Otherwise the logic is just slightly different enough I don't think it would save much.
>
> That said, perhaps there is value in extracting those 5 lines or so into a function. I'll give that a shot.
Yeah, the function isn't PPC-specific. The question is what the right rules are for homogeneous aggregates when aggregates contain ExtInt types. For PPC64 ELFv2, that... oh right, it only applies to floating-point and vector types. So I'm sorry, I led you on a false path here; we should not be trying to apply this logic to ExtInt types at all.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D79118/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D79118
More information about the cfe-commits
mailing list