Summary:
Initially, these intrinsics seemed like part of a family of "frame"
related intrinsics, but now I think that's more confusing than helpful.
Initially, the LangRef specified that this would create a new kind of
allocation that would be allocated at a fixed offset from the frame
pointer (EBP/RBP). We ended up dropping that design, and leaving the
stack frame layout alone.
These intrinsics are really about sharing local stack allocations, not
frame pointers. I intend to go further and add an `llvm.localaddress()`
intrinsic that returns whatever register (EBP, ESI, ESP, RBX) is being
used to address locals, which should not be confused with the frame
pointer.
Naming suggestions at this point are welcome, I'm happy to re-run sed.
Reviewers: majnemer, nicholas
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D11011
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@241633 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
The personality routine currently lives in the LandingPadInst.
This isn't desirable because:
- All LandingPadInsts in the same function must have the same
personality routine. This means that each LandingPadInst beyond the
first has an operand which produces no additional information.
- There is ongoing work to introduce EH IR constructs other than
LandingPadInst. Moving the personality routine off of any one
particular Instruction and onto the parent function seems a lot better
than have N different places a personality function can sneak onto an
exceptional function.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D10429
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@239940 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Same as r235145 for the call instruction - the justification, tradeoffs,
etc are all the same. The conversion script worked the same without any
false negatives (after replacing 'call' with 'invoke').
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@235755 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
