On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 10:44 PM, Rafael Espindola <[email protected]> wrote: >> I think you can use "f" without specifying a header name, but I'm >> guessing you don't want the warning asking for an explicit declaration >> of __clear_cache? (I don't have an ARM gcc around to check how it >> behaves.) > > Exactly, the issue is the warning. GCC handles this as a fully magic > function, no declaration in a header is needed. > >>> The patch also removes some dead code. There is not need to special >>> case ARM::BI__builtin_thread_pointer since the generic intrinsic >>> handling code takes care of it. >> >> Patch looks fine. > > Sorry, would you mind reviewing the new version attached? Trying to > bootstrap clang I noticed that the name was being mangle in c++ :-( > > If you think the assert should stay, I can also make > GetOrCreateLLVMFunction public.
CodeGenModule::CreateRuntimeFunction is the public API for that; and actually, I think explicitly building the function pointer using it would be better than depending on the declaration of the builtin, to call attention to the fact that it's a libgcc call rather than an ordinary library call. -Eli _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
