Hi Luc, On 11 August 2017 at 12:49, Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:28:23AM +0100, Dibyendu Majumdar wrote: >> On 10 August 2017 at 23:34, Luc Van Oostenryck >> <luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > * the OP_PUSH instructions do a perfect job of giving a type to functions >> > arguments >> > * the OP_PUSH instructions also nicely abstract away the *operation* of >> > argument passing that all architectures have. It's a good thing. >> > >> >> It is true that OP_PUSH instructions resolved the issue I was having. >> However there is something odd about them as they are not really >> instructions in the instruction stream, are they? They get added as >> arguments to the OP_CALL instruction. The solution works great though. > > Yes, they are somehow odd. I'm not totally sure by what you exactly > mean by "in the instruction stream", though. > > Let's use an example: > fun(1, a) > > Currently it's linearized as: > call fun, 1, a > > The first version of the patch gave: > arg %r1, $1 > arg %r2, a > call fun, %r1, %r2 > > The current version gives: > push $1 > push a > call fun > which is very much like a lot of functions really work. I was mistaken - I think they do appear in the instruction stream. I thought they didn't because we kind of ignore them - and only look at them as part of the OP_CALL arguments. Regards Dibyendu -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
