Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "e8b3851c".
2003 Dec 19
1
[LLVMdev] Union Type
...ng.
Okay! I'm convinced!
Reid.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20031219/e8b3851c/attachment.sig>
2003 Dec 19
0
[LLVMdev] Union Type
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Reid Spencer wrote:
> As a side effect of bug 178 (Stacker not handling 64-bit pointers on
> Solaris), I got thinking about a union type for LLVM. Is there any
> good reason that LLVM shouldn't support unions? This is essentially a
> structure that has its members all at the same address rather than at
> sequential addresses. I know there are various
2003 Dec 19
2
[LLVMdev] Union Type
As a side effect of bug 178 (Stacker not handling 64-bit pointers on
Solaris), I got thinking about a union type for LLVM. Is there any
good reason that LLVM shouldn't support unions? This is essentially a
structure that has its members all at the same address rather than at
sequential addresses. I know there are various issues with unions
(alignment, etc.) but wouldn't it make sense to