Anton Korobeynikov
2010-Sep-07 14:36 UTC
[LLVMdev] Union type, is it really used or necessary?
Hello, Erik> Otherwise, I'd like to know what needs to be done to get unions > back in LLVM.Well, the answer is pretty easy: someone should "fix" them to be supported throughout the whole set of libraries and became a "maintainer". Otherwise the feature being unused will quickly became broken. -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University
On 7 September 2010 15:36, Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info> wrote:> Otherwise the feature being unused will quickly became broken.It was already broken for ages... :/ Even if you're not using the backends (or MC), having it in front-end only will only confuse new users that will try to use it and hope it just works (my case, a few months ago). If there is nothing, you just work around it (by adding new features to structs, if necessary) or re-create unions, depending on your commitment to the union problem. Although having an union type would be quite an improvement to IR readability, I really don't need it that badly to write the whole back-end for it. It's just a matter of priorities, unfortunately... :( -- cheers, --renato http://systemcall.org/ Reclaim your digital rights, eliminate DRM, learn more at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm
Here's a suggestion - can we make the "union patch" (the inverse of the patch that removed unions) as a downloadable file so that people who are interested in finishing the work can do so? On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 7:55 AM, Renato Golin <rengolin at systemcall.org>wrote:> On 7 September 2010 15:36, Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info> > wrote: > > Otherwise the feature being unused will quickly became broken. > > It was already broken for ages... :/ > > Even if you're not using the backends (or MC), having it in front-end > only will only confuse new users that will try to use it and hope it > just works (my case, a few months ago). > > If there is nothing, you just work around it (by adding new features > to structs, if necessary) or re-create unions, depending on your > commitment to the union problem. Although having an union type would > be quite an improvement to IR readability, I really don't need it that > badly to write the whole back-end for it. > > It's just a matter of priorities, unfortunately... :( > > -- > cheers, > --renato > > http://systemcall.org/ > > Reclaim your digital rights, eliminate DRM, learn more at > http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >-- -- Talin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100907/c76d435d/attachment.html>