hvdijk wrote:
> > Would it not still be important for that for RVV intrinsics?
>
> Pretty sure we bypass all the normal calling convention lowering, in this
> context.
Ah, this is confusing. There's two types of RVV intrinsics that use this code.
Many use `ManualCodegen` which indeed bypasses the normal calling convention
lowering. But not all: for e.g. `vzext`, this results in a call to
`@llvm.riscv.vzext.*` LLVM intrinsics and does use the calling convention. But
then, the RISC-V calling convention attributes cannot be specified by
command-line options to be the default calling convention, so it still doesn't
actually make a difference at the moment.
So, I think `IsBuiltin=true` is currently set in all the right places, we
should not change behavior.
> Really what I don't want happening is someone copy-pastes
> getTargetInfo().getDefaultCallingConv() because it looks right, and doesn't
> realize there another whole method they're supposed to use for things that
> aren't actually "builtins".
That makes sense. I amended `ASTContext::getDefaultCallingConvention`'s
documentation to point out `getTargetInfo().getDefaultCallingConv()` in this
PR, would it be acceptable if I likewise point out in the
`TargetInfo::getDefaultCallingConv()` documentation when *not* to use it? At
the moment, that documentation looks wrong anyway: it is documented as
```
/// Gets the default calling convention for the given target and
/// declaration context.
virtual CallingConv getDefaultCallingConv() const {
// Not all targets will specify an explicit calling convention that we can
// express. This will always do the right thing, even though it's not
// an explicit calling convention.
return CC_C;
}
```
but there is no declaration context for it to take into account.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/145904
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
