[LLVMdev] LLVM and newlib progress

[Andrew Lenharth]

On 11/9/06, Pertti Kellomäki <pk at cs.tut.fi> wrote:
> The next task is to go for the system calls. As I said earlier,
> I plan to use intrinsic functions as place holders. Any opinions
> how to name them? Currently there are a few intrinsics that have
> to do with libc, like llvm.memcpy and llvm.memmove. However, I
> would personally prefer less pollution in the intrinsic name space,
> so I would propose naming the intrinsics with a llvm.libc prefix,
> e.g. llvm.libc.open and so forth. Any strong opinions on this?

There have been syscall intrinsic patches floating around in the past,
but the prevailing opinion right now is that this is a matter best
handled for inline assembly.  I would send you my old syscall
intrinsic patch, but it is out of date with respect to both
codegeneration and how one does intrinsics.

Andrew