Re: llvm calling convention matters

On 09/11/2013 07:33 PM, Johan Tibell wrote:

On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Geoffrey Mainland wrote:

I don't see why we should limit ourselves by insisting that the gap between what the LLVM back-end and the native back-end not grow further. If we want SIMD, the gap is already quite large. Yes it would be nice to have feature parity, but there are only so many man-hours available, and we want to invest them wisely. The SIMD primops already do not work on the native codegen; the user gets an error telling them to use the LLVM back-end if they use the SIMD primops with the native codegen.

Having conditional primops makes for lots of ugly #ifdefs everywhere and everyone need to make sure they do these correctly. We don't have to implement SIMD in the native backend, we just need to have some reasonable emulation e.g. see how MO_PopCnt has a C fallback or how Int64 falls back to C code.

Do you mean we need a reasonable emulation of the SIMD primops for the native codegen? Geoff