ad4a582fd9
Some targets (e.g. PPC and Hexagon) already did this. I think it's best to do this consistently so that frontend authors don't run into inconsistent results when they emit `naked` functions. For example, in Zig, we had to change our emit code to also set `frame-pointer=none` to get reliable results across targets. Note: I don't have commit access.
46 lines
1.3 KiB
LLVM
46 lines
1.3 KiB
LLVM
; NOTE: Assertions have been autogenerated by utils/update_llc_test_checks.py UTC_ARGS: --version 5
|
|
; RUN: llc < %s -mtriple sparc | FileCheck %s -check-prefixes=CHECK-32
|
|
; RUN: llc < %s -mtriple sparc64 | FileCheck %s -check-prefixes=CHECK-64
|
|
|
|
declare dso_local void @main()
|
|
|
|
define dso_local void @naked() naked "frame-pointer"="all" {
|
|
; CHECK-32-LABEL: naked:
|
|
; CHECK-32: .cfi_startproc
|
|
; CHECK-32-NEXT: ! %bb.0:
|
|
; CHECK-32-NEXT: call main
|
|
; CHECK-32-NEXT: nop
|
|
;
|
|
; CHECK-64-LABEL: naked:
|
|
; CHECK-64: .cfi_startproc
|
|
; CHECK-64-NEXT: ! %bb.0:
|
|
; CHECK-64-NEXT: call main
|
|
; CHECK-64-NEXT: nop
|
|
call void @main()
|
|
unreachable
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
define dso_local void @normal() "frame-pointer"="all" {
|
|
; CHECK-32-LABEL: normal:
|
|
; CHECK-32: .cfi_startproc
|
|
; CHECK-32-NEXT: ! %bb.0:
|
|
; CHECK-32-NEXT: save %sp, -96, %sp
|
|
; CHECK-32-NEXT: .cfi_def_cfa_register %fp
|
|
; CHECK-32-NEXT: .cfi_window_save
|
|
; CHECK-32-NEXT: .cfi_register %o7, %i7
|
|
; CHECK-32-NEXT: call main
|
|
; CHECK-32-NEXT: nop
|
|
;
|
|
; CHECK-64-LABEL: normal:
|
|
; CHECK-64: .cfi_startproc
|
|
; CHECK-64-NEXT: ! %bb.0:
|
|
; CHECK-64-NEXT: save %sp, -176, %sp
|
|
; CHECK-64-NEXT: .cfi_def_cfa_register %fp
|
|
; CHECK-64-NEXT: .cfi_window_save
|
|
; CHECK-64-NEXT: .cfi_register %o7, %i7
|
|
; CHECK-64-NEXT: call main
|
|
; CHECK-64-NEXT: nop
|
|
call void @main()
|
|
unreachable
|
|
}
|