tlively marked 3 inline comments as done.
tlively added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/TargetInfo.cpp:741
+ explicit WebAssemblyABIInfo(CodeGen::CodeGenTypes &CGT, ABIKind _Kind)
+ : SwiftABIInfo(CGT), defaultInfo(CGT), Kind(_Kind) {}
----------------
aheejin wrote:
> Nit: Do we need `_`?
I was cargo culting the ARM targets here. It may be that some compilers get
confused when the type and variable have the same name in this situation?
================
Comment at: clang/test/CodeGen/wasm-arguments.c:19
+
// Structs should be passed byval and not split up.
+// WEBASSEMBLY32: define void @struct_arg(%struct.s1* byval(%struct.s1) align
4 %i)
----------------
aheejin wrote:
> The comment here includes only the MVP case. Shouldn't we update this? Ditto
> for the other comments below.
I think there is some value in having the comments describe the expected stable
behavior and let the "EXPERIMENTAL" speak for itself. The only thing I can
think of adding to the comment is "... in non-experimental ABIs", but that
doesn't seem too valuable to have.
================
Comment at: clang/test/CodeGen/wasm-arguments.c:98
+// WEBASSEMBLY64: define void @union_arg(%union.simple_union*
byval(%union.simple_union) align 4 %s)
+// EXPERIMENTAL-MV: define void @union_arg(i32 %s.0)
+void union_arg(union simple_union s) {}
----------------
aheejin wrote:
> Why is the union passed as an int for MV?
Unions cannot be represented precisely in LLVM IR. I believe they are just
represented as their largest component, as this one is. From an ABI point of
view it is either an int or a struct containing a single int, both of which are
passed by value in our ABI.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D72972/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D72972
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
