On Wed, 26 Apr 2006, Archie Cobbs wrote:>> I haven't started this, so I have no idea how I would handle passing >> the information back and forth. > > With no annotation support, it doesn't seem like you can. This is > the problem. I'm not saying annotations are good, just that they > represent one (sub-optimal) solution to the problem. Without them, > we have zero solutions to the problem.Why do you believe this? -Chris -- http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://llvm.org/
Chris Lattner wrote:> On Wed, 26 Apr 2006, Archie Cobbs wrote: >>> I haven't started this, so I have no idea how I would handle passing >>> the information back and forth. >> >> With no annotation support, it doesn't seem like you can. This is >> the problem. I'm not saying annotations are good, just that they >> represent one (sub-optimal) solution to the problem. Without them, >> we have zero solutions to the problem. > > Why do you believe this?Sorry, that sounded more pessimistic that it was supposed to. What I meant was, there are probably better solutions out there, but they haven't been implemented yet and it will take some work (both defining them and coding them) to get there. At least, that's what I think I've heard so far (don't forget I'm the "newbie" here :-) I'd be interested to hear any ideas along these lines that are brewing (if this is the right place to discuss them). -Archie __________________________________________________________________________ Archie Cobbs * CTO, Awarix * http://www.awarix.com
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006, Archie Cobbs wrote:>>> With no annotation support, it doesn't seem like you can. This is >>> the problem. I'm not saying annotations are good, just that they >>> represent one (sub-optimal) solution to the problem. Without them, >>> we have zero solutions to the problem. >> >> Why do you believe this? > > Sorry, that sounded more pessimistic that it was supposed to. > > What I meant was, there are probably better solutions out there, > but they haven't been implemented yet and it will take some work > (both defining them and coding them) to get there. At least, that's > what I think I've heard so far (don't forget I'm the "newbie" here :-)I still don't follow. Having annotations on the IR is *exactly* equivalant to having a map from IR objects to the things you want to annotate them with. Why isn't this just as acceptable (and problematic) as annotations? -Chris -- http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://llvm.org/