[LLVMdev] Status of YAML IO?

Nick Kledzik
Wed, 31 Oct 2012 22:44:49 -0000

On Oct 30, 2012, at 7:53 PM, Shankar Easwaran wrote:

> Hi Nick,
>> Can you be more specific in your proposal.  What method(s) would you
add to the the Atom class(es)?  I thought you were thinking of a generic
uint32_t DefinedAtom::flags() method where the meaning of each bit in the
uint32_t returned was platform specific.  How can that work with a min/max
range?
>>
> The range of flags would be integers ranging from LOW_PROC .. HIGH_PROC.
>
> The Generic flags would be within the range less than LOW_PROC  and greater
HIGH_PROC. Any value within the range LOW_PROC .. HIGH_PROC is os/platform
specific.
>
> What I was thinking was there could be a uint32_t flags() in the
definedAtom which returns the flags, and platforms can act accordingly on the
meaning of the flags in their pieces of code.
>
> What do you think ?
You still have not given an example of what information is missing in the
current Atom model that is driving the need for this.

It sounds like your flags() returns a value - not a set of bits.  Which means it
can only be used for one thing.  What if you need two or more kinds of
information/attributes not in the Atom model?   I don't see why LOW_PROC,
HIGH_PROC is needed.  If we decide there are new kinds of information/attributes
that are general we would just define new methods on Atom, rather than define a
value to be returned by flags().

-Nick