[PATCH] D124435: [X86] Always extend the integer parameters in callee

[LiuChen via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

LiuChen3 added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/TargetInfo.cpp:1938
+    return IsConservativeExtend ? ABIArgInfo::getConservativeExtend(Ty)
+                                : ABIArgInfo::getExtend(Ty);
   }
----------------
rjmccall wrote:
> LiuChen3 wrote:
> > rjmccall wrote:
> > > This looks wrong.  In non-`ConservativeExtend` mode, we don't get to assume extension at all and should use `Direct`, right?
> > As I understand it, `Direct` means do nothing with the parameters. Caller won't do the extension and callee can't assume the parameter is correct. This makes new clang behave in the opposite way to currently clang behavior, which will cause incompatibility issue. e.g:
> > https://godbolt.org/z/d3Peq4nsG
> Oh, I see, you're thinking that `-mno-conservative-extend` means "do what old versions of clang did" rather than "break compatibility with old versions of clang and just follow the x86_64 ABI".  That's definitely different from the documentation I suggested, so something's got to change.
> 
> I think these are the possibilities here:
> 
> 1. Some platforms, like Apple's, are probably going to define Clang's current behavior as the platform ABI.  So those platforms need to continue to use `Extend`.  My previous comment about using `Direct` wasn't paying due attention to this case.
> 
> 2. On other platforms, we need to maintain compatibility by default with both the platform ABI and old Clang behavior.  Those platforms will need to use `ConservativeExtend`.
> 
> 3. Some people may want to opt out of (2) and just be compatible with the platform ABI, which has minor code-size and performance wins.  If we support that with an option, I believe it should cause us to emit `Direct`.  This is what I was thinking `-mno-conservative-extend` would mean.
> 
> 4. Some people may want to force the use of (1) even on platforms where that isn't the platform ABI.  I don't know if this is really something we should support in the long term, but it might be valuable for people staging this change in.  This is what you seem to be thinking `-mno-conservative-extend` would mean.
> 
> I would suggest these spellings for the argument, instead of making it boolean:
> 
> ```
> -mextend-small-integers=none    // Force the use of Direct
> -mextend-small-integers=conservative // Force the use of ConservativeExtend
> -mextend-small-integers=assumed // Force the use of Extend
> -mextend-small-integers=default // Use the default rule for the target
> ```
Yes. That's what I mean. I totally misunderstood your meaning before. 
I agree with your method. I will work on that. Just one concern about the 'default': the default behavior is 'conservative' instead of 'default'. Wouldn't that be a little weird? But with my limited English I can't think of a better word. 'default' is ok for me. :-)


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D124435/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D124435