erichkeane added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D35259#805409, @rnk wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D35259#805284, @erichkeane wrote: > > > Oren discovered this miss to the original implementation. I'd reviewed > > this internally quite a bit. > > > > The reason for the Win32ABI test is that MSVC 'long double' is actually > > small enough for SSE registers in this case. I DO now (looking again, > > sorry Elizabeth) wonder if there is a better way to exclude extended-length > > LongDouble type? Could we us the 'length' of it instead? @rnk : opinion? > > > Yeah, you can ask clang::TargetInfo for the format of most basic FP types. > The code to do that looks like: > > &TI.getLongDoubleFormat() == &llvm::APFloat::x87DoubleExtended() > > > Any reason you can't just add that condition to isX86VectorTypeForVectorCall? > I assume we don't want to pass x86_fp80s in SSE registers for vectorcall > either, right? That would eliminate the need for the isRegCallReturnableHA > helper and the IsWin32StructABI parameter, which is a poorly named variable. It actually WOULD make sense to apply this to vectorcall as well, wouldn't it? I presumed we didnt want to change its behavior, however vectorcall is MSVC-only (other than us), so the long-double issue isn't a thing over there.@eandrews? https://reviews.llvm.org/D35259 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
