Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> writes:>> I suspected this was the case. Is a rework of prefix support likely to >> make it in for 3.5? >> > > Unlikely. It has branched already and I don't know of anyone working on it. >Fair enough. If there is consensus around a reasonably concrete proposal I would be happy to put together a patch (acknowledging that it probably won't make it in for 3.5). Does Reid's proposal seem reasonable? Cheers, - Ben -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 472 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140723/e021f440/attachment.sig>
Ben Gamari <bgamari.foss at gmail.com> writes:> Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> writes: > >>> I suspected this was the case. Is a rework of prefix support likely to >>> make it in for 3.5? >>> >> >> Unlikely. It has branched already and I don't know of anyone working on it. >> > Fair enough. If there is consensus around a reasonably concrete proposal > I would be happy to put together a patch (acknowledging that it probably > won't make it in for 3.5). Does Reid's proposal seem reasonable? >Ping? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 472 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140821/c558e019/attachment.sig>
+the people I hashed this out with so many months ago
I think it's a reasonable proposal, but obviously I floated it. :) Let's
try to get a second opinion.
Again, it's a syntax something like:
define void @foo() prefix [i8* x 2] { i8* @a, i8* @b } prologue [i8 x 4]
c"\xde\xad\xbe\xef" { ret void }
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Ben Gamari <bgamari.foss at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Ben Gamari <bgamari.foss at gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >>> I suspected this was the case. Is a rework of prefix support
likely to
> >>> make it in for 3.5?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Unlikely. It has branched already and I don't know of anyone
working on
> it.
> >>
> > Fair enough. If there is consensus around a reasonably concrete
proposal
> > I would be happy to put together a patch (acknowledging that it
probably
> > won't make it in for 3.5). Does Reid's proposal seem
reasonable?
> >
> Ping?
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140916/257cda4f/attachment.html>