[llvm-dev] Suggestion / Help regarding new calling convention

[vivek pandya via llvm-dev]

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 8:55 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote:
Hello Reid,
Yes actually idea to identify local function is taken from GlobalOpt : )

> GlobalOpt already does this with fastcc, use it as a guide if you want to
> do this:
>
> https://github.com/llvm-mirror/llvm/blob/63b34cdf342b8265d98357008765b2563dd04e6c/lib/Transforms/IPO/GlobalOpt.cpp#L2023
>
> You can't just change the convention of F, you need to update the
> convention used at F's call sites.
>
 Thanks for pointing this out , and looking at RemoveNestAttribute() in
GlobalOpt I think even if I add new Function attribute then also it needs
to be updated at every call sites.

> Unfortunately, while LLVM has PreserveMost and PreservesAll calling
> conventions, it does not appear to have an equivalent PreservesNone/Least.
>
Actually we are in favor of adding new CC like No_CSR but what I want to
discuss is how much minimal changes are required and also as I mentioned
for the purpose of IPRA we don't really have any new rules for parameter
passing or return value etc So will it be good to have new CC for this
purpose and if new CC is added is it ok to keep parameter passing and other
rules same as common CC?

I hope my question is clear.

Sincerely,
Vivek

>
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 7:39 AM, vivek pandya via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> Dear Community,
>>
>> To improve current interprocedural register allocation (IPRA) , we have
>> planned to set callee saved registers to none for local functions,
>> currently I am doing it in following way:
>>
>> if (F->hasLocalLinkage()  && !F->hasAddressTaken()) {
>>    DEBUG(dbgs() << "Function has LocalLinkage \n");
>> F->setCallingConv(CallingConv::GHC);
>>  }
>>
>> but we think threre should be clean and properway to do this perhaps like:
>>
>> if (F->hasLocalLinkage() && !F->hasAddressTaken()) {
>>     DEBUG(dbgs() << "Function has LocalLinkage \n");
>>     F->setCallingConv(CallingConv::NO_Callee_Saved);
>>   }
>>
>> So I would like to know any better suggestions and if it is better to add
>> a new CC for this purpose then what aspects should be considered while
>> defining a new CC. Actually in this case the new CC does not really
>> required to define how parameters should be passed or any special rule for
>> return value etc , it just required to set callee saved registers to be
>> none. So what are the minimal things required to define such a CC?
>>
>> Other alternative that I have thought was to add new attribute for
>> function and use it like following in
>> TargetFrameLowering::determineCalleeSaves()
>>
>>  // In Naked functions we aren't going to save any registers.
>>   if (MF.getFunction()->hasFnAttribute(Attribute::Naked))
>>     return;
>>
>> Any suggestions / thoughts are welcomed !
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Vivek
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160620/6381a37e/attachment.html>