This reverts commit r200561.
This calling convention was an attempt to match the MSVC C++ ABI for
methods that return structures by value. This solution didn't scale,
because it would have required splitting every CC available on Windows
into two: one for methods and one for free functions.
Now that we can put sret on the second arg (r208453), and Clang does
that (r208458), revert this hack.
llvm-svn: 208459
MSVC always places the 'this' parameter for a method first. The
implicit 'sret' pointer for methods always comes second. We already
implement this for __thiscall by putting sret parameters on the stack,
but __cdecl methods require putting both parameters on the stack in
opposite order.
Using a special calling convention allows frontends to keep the sret
parameter first, which avoids breaking lots of assumptions in LLVM and
Clang.
Fixes PR15768 with the corresponding change in Clang.
Reviewers: ributzka, majnemer
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2663
llvm-svn: 200561
This patch adds two new target-independent calling conventions for runtime
calls - PreserveMost and PreserveAll.
The target-specific implementation for X86-64 is defined as following:
- Arguments are passed as for the default C calling convention
- The same applies for the return value(s)
- PreserveMost preserves all GPRs - except R11
- PreserveAll preserves all GPRs and all XMMs/YMMs - except R11
Reviewed by Lang and Philip
llvm-svn: 199508
Use separate callee-save masks for XMM and YMM registers for anyregcc on X86 and
select the proper mask depending on the target cpu we compile for.
llvm-svn: 198985
Unlike msvc, when handling a thiscall + sret gcc will
* Put the sret in %ecx
* Put the this pointer is (%esp)
This fixes, for example, calling stringstream::str.
llvm-svn: 196312
The idea of the AnyReg Calling Convention is to provide the call arguments in
registers, but not to force them to be placed in a paticular order into a
specified set of registers. Instead it is up tp the register allocator to assign
any register as it sees fit. The same applies to the return value (if
applicable).
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2009
Reviewed by Andy
llvm-svn: 194293
Summary:
This patch adds explicit calling convention types for the Win64 and
System V/x86-64 ABIs. This allows code to override the default, and use
the Win64 convention on a target that wants to use SysV (and
vice-versa). This is needed to implement the `ms_abi` and `sysv_abi` GNU
attributes.
Reviewers:
CC:
llvm-svn: 186144
the difference from "int x" (which should go in registers and
"struct y {int x;}" (which should not).
Clang will be updated in the next patches.
llvm-svn: 166536
integer registers. This is already supported by the fastcc convention, but it doesn't
hurt to support it in the standard conventions as well.
In cases where we can cheat at the calling convention, this allows us to avoid returning
things through memory in more cases.
llvm-svn: 157698
The x86_mmx type is used for MMX intrinsics, parameters and
return values where these use MMX registers, and is also
supported in load, store, and bitcast.
Only the above operations generate MMX instructions, and optimizations
do not operate on or produce MMX intrinsics.
MMX-sized vectors <2 x i32> etc. are lowered to XMM or split into
smaller pieces. Optimizations may occur on these forms and the
result casted back to x86_mmx, provided the result feeds into a
previous existing x86_mmx operation.
The point of all this is prevent optimizations from introducing
MMX operations, which is unsafe due to the EMMS problem.
llvm-svn: 115243
out of sync with regular cc.
The only difference between the tail call cc and the normal
cc was that one parameter register - R9 - was reserved for
calling functions through a function pointer. After time the
tail call cc has gotten out of sync with the regular cc.
We can use R11 which is also caller saved but not used as
parameter register for potential function pointers and
remove the special tail call cc on x86-64.
llvm-svn: 73233
to be returned in DL. LLVM's multiple-return-value support is
not ABI-conforming; front-ends that wish to have code emitted
that conforms to an ABI are currently expected to make
arrangements for this on their own rather than assuming that
multiple-return-values will automatically do the right thing.
This commit doesn't fundamentally change this situation.
llvm-svn: 67588
Robert Khasanov