Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "cmpxchgpossiblyweak".
2014 Jun 18
2
[LLVMdev] Clarification on the backward compatibility promises
On 18 June 2014 17:10, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Do others agree that this is the case or at least that this would be a
>> >> reasonable balance?
>> > IMO it's easier to be compatible on .ll level, no?
>>
>> That is not my experience with the bitcode format. The way the API is
>> structured makes it really easy
2014 Jun 22
2
[LLVMdev] Clarification on the backward compatibility promises
...looked at r210903, and it seems like the reason that it was
> easier to maintain the bitcode compatibility is that the size of the record
> implicitly identifies whether the record was written before or after the
> change. I.e., it would have been as though you had introduced a
> "cmpxchgpossiblyweak" instruction that has the new return type, so that you
> can tell which it is without extensive analysis.
>
> At face value, this seems like a pretty compelling argument that the
> bitcode is easier to version and keep compatible.
>
> -- Sean Silva
>
>
>> Cheers....