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.
36 lines
1.0 KiB
LLVM
36 lines
1.0 KiB
LLVM
; NOTE: Assertions have been autogenerated by utils/update_llc_test_checks.py UTC_ARGS: --version 5
|
|
; RUN: llc < %s -mtriple lanai | FileCheck %s -check-prefixes=CHECK
|
|
|
|
declare dso_local void @main()
|
|
|
|
define dso_local void @naked() naked "frame-pointer"="all" {
|
|
; CHECK-LABEL: naked:
|
|
; CHECK: .Lnaked$local:
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: .type .Lnaked$local,@function
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: .cfi_startproc
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: ! %bb.0:
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: add %pc, 0x10, %rca
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: st %rca, [--%sp]
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: bt main
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: nop
|
|
call void @main()
|
|
unreachable
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
define dso_local void @normal() "frame-pointer"="all" {
|
|
; CHECK-LABEL: normal:
|
|
; CHECK: .Lnormal$local:
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: .type .Lnormal$local,@function
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: .cfi_startproc
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: ! %bb.0:
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: st %fp, [--%sp]
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: add %sp, 0x8, %fp
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: sub %sp, 0x8, %sp
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: add %pc, 0x10, %rca
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: st %rca, [--%sp]
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: bt main
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: nop
|
|
call void @main()
|
|
unreachable
|
|
}
|