search for: 8c36b1a1

Hi, > Another option that was discussed in #llvm is to nuke LLVMBuilder and > rename LLVMFoldingBuilder to LLVMBuilder. If this was the case, I'd > argue for a flag in the Builder that could retain the old non-folding > functionality for debugging purposes. this plan sounds good to me. However it's not clear to me how useful a debug flag would really be. Ciao, Duncan.

...h so please let me know if there are any problems or anything I need to do differently. Thanks -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: llvm-gcc42.IRBuilder.patch URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20080410/8c36b1a1/attachment.ksh> -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: llvm.IRBuilder.patch URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20080410/8c36b1a1/attachment-0001.ksh>

Hello llvm dev peeps I would like to use an LLVMBuilder pointer as a base pointer to reference either an LLVMBuilder or an LLVMFoldingBuilder. As the methods in the Folding builder have the same names as the base class, I thought about submitting a patch whereby the base class methods would become virtual. However, the base class methods return specific types while the Folding builder, for