On Aug 12, 2013, at 2:15 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote:> Originally, the distinguishing feature of "primitive" types was that they were enumerable and not parameterized on anything.Right.> Then we moved to arbitrary bit-width integers types to generalize things significantly (the right move IMO).Right.> Thus, integers were no longer technically primitive types, and their categorization in code has changed to reflect this. >Right.> > But that doesn't make *any sense*. The documentation for primitive types also is still written in a way that would include integers.What purpose does the notion of "primitive" types serve anymore? Why don't we just abolish that from the lexicon and from the code? -Chris
> What purpose does the notion of "primitive" types serve anymore? Why don't we just abolish that from the lexicon and from the code?Hi Chris, The attached patch removes it from Type.h and updates the last users. Is that what you were looking for? Cheers, Rafael -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: t.patch Type: application/octet-stream Size: 6755 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20131206/cf837c3b/attachment.obj>
On Dec 6, 2013, at 6:37 PM, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote:>> What purpose does the notion of "primitive" types serve anymore? Why don't we just abolish that from the lexicon and from the code? > > Hi Chris, > > The attached patch removes it from Type.h and updates the last users. > Is that what you were looking for?Yep, LGTM. It would also be nice to remove the mention from LangRef. -Chris