Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "aretypesisomorphic".
2011 Dec 20
1
[LLVMdev] [LLVM, llvm-link] Opaque types.
......something...}
But at the same time we should not map next two functions (PR11627):
; 3.ll
declare i32 @foo(i16* %v)
; 4.ll
define i32 @foo(i32* %b) {...something...}
If I right, with that. How it is better to fix that? I propose to create some method canMapFunctions that will very similar to areTypesIsomorphic except the case I described in 1.ll and 2.ll. Is it fine?
-Stepan
2011 Dec 20
2
[LLVMdev] [LLVM, llvm-link] Opaque types.
Is it legal to substitute non struct type instead of opaque type?
For example:
; 1.ll
declare void @F(i32*)
; 2.ll
%T1 = type opaque
declare void @F(%T1*)
Is it normal to replace T1 with i32 here?
If yes. Will the next types are isomorphic?:
%T1 = type opaque
{ i32, %T1* }
{ i32, i32* }
-Stepan.
2011 Dec 20
0
[LLVMdev] [LLVM, llvm-link] Opaque types.
On Dec 20, 2011, at 12:11 PM, Stepan Dyatkovskiy wrote:
> Is it legal to substitute non struct type instead of opaque type?
>
> For example:
> ; 1.ll
> declare void @F(i32*)
>
> ; 2.ll
> %T1 = type opaque
> declare void @F(%T1*)
>
> Is it normal to replace T1 with i32 here?
Yes, the linker will do this, because it is forced to break type safety to link up the