On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Aaron Ballman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 7:30 PM, Eli Friedman <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Aaron Ballman <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:42 PM, Eli Friedman <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Aaron Ballman <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:50 PM, Eli Friedman <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Aaron Ballman <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:52 PM, Eli Friedman <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Aaron Ballman >>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Here's the next attempt at the MSVC thiscall support patch, this time >>>>>>>>> with test cases and an improved tablegen declaration. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is the first time I've done a test case for clang or llvm >>>>>>>>> codegen, so please pay special attention to the test cases and let me >>>>>>>>> know if I'm off-base (and what I should do differently). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You might want to make the LLVM testcase a bit stronger by using >>>>>>>> CHECK-NEXT. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Does CHECK-NEXT basically chain the checks together to check several >>>>>>> lines as a group? >>>>>> >>>>>> Basically, yes. >>>>> >>>>> The problem is that the assembly is different between O levels. So >>>>> -O0 does leal, leal, but -O1 does leal, movl. >>>>> >>>>> Is there a way for me to handle this in the test case, or should I >>>>> just be explicit about the O level and its behavior? >>>> >>>> We always run tests at the same -O level, so you shouldn't worry about >>>> that. That said, if you think splitting your testcase into multiple >>>> functions would make it more stable, please do that. >>> >>> Here's another shot at the patch -- this time, I am using the proper >>> way to test for the Win32 ABI, and I've updated the X86 codegen test >>> case so that it's a bit more clear. >> >> Your test somehow disappeared form the clang patch. >> >> Please rename IsWin32FloatStructABI if you're going to use it this >> way. I'm still not convinced it's necessary to behave differently >> when targeting MinGW, though. > > That was truly odd -- no idea how the test case got missed, but it's > back again. I've also removed the check for the Win32 ABI as it > appears this is used by gcc (4.6 and up) for MS compat as well.
Both patches look good. -Eli _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
