================
Comment at: lib/CodeGen/CGCall.cpp:1148-1150
@@ +1147,5 @@
+
+ for (; NumIRArgs > 0; --NumIRArgs) {
+ IRArgs[ArgNo].push_back(IRArgNo++);
+ }
+
----------------
Alexey Samsonov wrote:
> Reid Kleckner wrote:
> > Looks like all argument types consume either zero, one, or sequential IR
> > arguments. This only needs to store one number per AST-level argument. If
> > there are zero IR args, use InvalidIndex. If there is one IR arg, store the
> > IR arg number. If there are more than one, store the first IR arg number.
> > The consumers can increment that during argument expansion.
> >
> > Does that sound reasonable?
> Yes, I think the assumption that all IR arguments are sequential is
> reasonable. Currently, we would still need to do argument expansion both
> here, and in EmitPrologue/EmitCall methods. I think it makes to store the
> number of expanded arguments to assert that the numbers match (at least until
> we refactor terribly similar GetExpandedTypes / ExpandTypeFromArgs /
> ExpandTypeToArgs into a single routine and/or introduce a map "QualType ->
> number of arguments it expands to").
>
> What we can do is replace PaddingIRArgIndex and IRArgs vectors with a single
> vector of triples <PaddingIRArgIndex, FirstIRArgIndex, NumberOfIRArgs>. WDYT?
Yeah, sounds good.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D4938
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
