llvm dev - Jan 2007 - [LLVMdev] General LLVM question

Hello, Chris.
> It depends on what sort of attribute it is.  If it is something specific 
> to a particular function, adding it to the Function object makes sense 
> (e.g. see alignment and section info).  If it affects the calling 
> convention, adding it to FunctionType makes sense.
I'm wanting some "general" attribute interface which can be
applied to
concrete Function object. It seems, that just a set of string-string
pairs should be enough.

Surely, this interface can be used for some specific stuff at first time
(e.g. some attributes like visibility nowadays), which can be further
moved to its own implementation instead of generic one.

-- 
With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov.

Faculty of Mathematics & Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University.

On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, Anton Korobeynikov wrote:
>> It depends on what sort of attribute it is.  If it is something
specific
>> to a particular function, adding it to the Function object makes sense
>> (e.g. see alignment and section info).  If it affects the calling
>> convention, adding it to FunctionType makes sense.
> I'm wanting some "general" attribute interface which can be
applied to
> concrete Function object. It seems, that just a set of string-string
> pairs should be enough.
>
> Surely, this interface can be used for some specific stuff at first time 
> (e.g. some attributes like visibility nowadays), which can be further 
> moved to its own implementation instead of generic one.
I am currently opposed to a general purpose way to stick random data on 
functions.  With strings, you don't know what to do when linking (what 
combinations are invalid?), you can't verify them, and the code generator 
doesn't know how to handle them.

-Chris

-- 
http://nondot.org/sabre/
http://llvm.org/