On May 23, 2009, at 12:04 PM, Nick Lewycky wrote:>> >> That sounds like a serious bug then: {} should be a first class value >> just like {i32}. > > Okay then. I've just posted a patch to llvm-commits which would do > that: > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20090518/077934.htmlWhy not separate the two patches: making {} legal shouldn't be tied to the new MD type switchover. -Chris
Chris Lattner wrote:> On May 23, 2009, at 12:04 PM, Nick Lewycky wrote: >>> That sounds like a serious bug then: {} should be a first class value >>> just like {i32}. >> Okay then. I've just posted a patch to llvm-commits which would do >> that: >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20090518/077934.html > > Why not separate the two patches: making {} legal shouldn't be tied to > the new MD type switchover.That would allow people to use metadata in their instructions. Nick
On May 23, 2009, at 1:47 PM, Nick Lewycky wrote:> Chris Lattner wrote: >> On May 23, 2009, at 12:04 PM, Nick Lewycky wrote: >>>> That sounds like a serious bug then: {} should be a first class >>>> value >>>> just like {i32}. >>> Okay then. I've just posted a patch to llvm-commits which would do >>> that: >>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20090518/077934.html >> >> Why not separate the two patches: making {} legal shouldn't be tied >> to >> the new MD type switchover. > > That would allow people to use metadata in their instructions.You can reject that in different ways! -Chris