atrosinenko added a comment. In D84602#2176584 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D84602#2176584>, @rjmccall wrote:
> Is there only one special calling convention, or is there any chance that > different builtin functions would use different conventions? It depends on how to define "builtin calling convention". Now it is in fact a "CC for builtin functions with two 64-bit arguments listed in Section 6.3 of EABI document". MSP430 EABI defines one such CC applied to a small subset of compiler helper functions, while others use the traditional CC like all other functions. In D84602#2176592 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D84602#2176592>, @aaron.ballman wrote: > To be clear, I also don't have a problem with it, but if users aren't > supposed to be writing this attribute themselves and if we can apply the > calling convention from markings in a .def file instead, I think it could be > a cleaner approach to go that route instead. There's a lot of "ifs" in that > sentence though. :-) Do you mean detecting these functions by their names, like GCC does? If so, that trick would replace all the - D84602: [MSP430] Expose msp430_builtin calling convention to C code <https://reviews.llvm.org/D84602> - D84605: [IR][MSP430] Expose the "msp430_builtin" calling convention to .ll <https://reviews.llvm.org/D84605> - D84636: [RFC] Make the default LibCall implementations from compiler-rt builtins library more customizable <https://reviews.llvm.org/D84636> ... provided this is considered as a generally suggested solution across the codebase, not a hack :) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D84602/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D84602 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
