[llvm-commits] [llvm] r62338 - in /llvm/trunk: lib/Target/X86/X86ISelLowering.cpp test/CodeGen/X86/ret-addr.ll

[Bill Wendling]

For Depth > 1 (2 in this case), I get this from LLVM:

	.align	1,0x90
	.globl	_h
_h:
	pushl	%ebp
	movl	%esp, %ebp
	pushl	%ebp
	movl	(%ebp), %eax
	movl	(%eax), %eax
	movl	4(%eax), %eax
	popl	%ebp
	popl	%ebp
	ret

And this from GCC:

.globl _h
_h:
	pushl	%ebp
	movl	%esp, %ebp
	movl	0(%ebp), %eax
	movl	(%eax), %eax
	movl	4(%eax), %eax
	leave
	ret

Except for the extraneous push/pop, these are the same, right? Or am I
missing something?

-bw

On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple.com> wrote:
> This doesn't do the right thing for Depth > 1.  I don't think we need
> to short term, but the test should be ==1 and a comment should
> indicate this.
>
> On Jan 16, 2009, at 11:25 AMPST, Bill Wendling wrote:
>>
>> +  if (Depth > 0) {
>> +    SDValue FrameAddr = LowerFRAMEADDR(Op, DAG);
>> +    SDValue Offset =
>> +      DAG.getConstant(TD->getPointerSize(),
>> +                      Subtarget->is64Bit() ? MVT::i64 : MVT::i32);
>> +    return DAG.getLoad(getPointerTy(), DAG.getEntryNode(),
>> +                       DAG.getNode(ISD::ADD, getPointerTy(),
>> FrameAddr, Offset),
>> +                       NULL, 0);
>> +  }
>
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>