search for: 077934

...ck 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. -Chris

...a case >> where you want this to happen? > > 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 Nick

...ycky 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

...nds 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

On May 19, 2009, at 7:58 PM, Nick Lewycky wrote: > Chris Lattner wrote: >> On May 19, 2009, at 12:32 AM, Nick Lewycky wrote: >> >>> Chris Lattner wrote: >>>> FYI, I wrote up some thoughts on this here: >>>> http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/MemoryUseMarkers.txt >>>> >>>> The intention is to allow front-ends to express things