search for: eregression

I think we should keep GEP essentially the same, but disassociate the type being GEPd over from the type of the operands. So, assuming the new ptr type is spelled "ptr", we could use this syntax: %inner.ptr = getelementptr ptr, ptr %x, i32 1 Or if I was adding 1 to a "struct A*" value in C: %next_elt = getelementptr %struct.A, ptr %x, i32 1 Ditto for all other instructions

...simplifying a ton of the in-memory support and the optimizer now that the old forms can't show up > > > Also: > > It also wouldn't be too hard to accept the old .ll syntax, since the upgrade path mostly discards information. > > I agree here. If only because of th eregression test suite, and the *incredible* tediousness of updating the pointers. The auto-upgrade for this kind of thing is essentially perfect. I agree in principle, but I think the precedent here is dangerous. Thanks, Pete > > > -Chandler > > > _______________________________________...

...of the in-memory support and the optimizer now that > the old forms can't show up > > > Also: > > It also wouldn't be too hard to accept the old .ll syntax, since the >> upgrade path mostly discards information. >> > > I agree here. If only because of th eregression test suite, and the > *incredible* tediousness of updating the pointers. The auto-upgrade for > this kind of thing is essentially perfect. > > I agree in principle, but I think the precedent here is dangerous. > > Thanks, > Pete > > > > -Chandler > > > ____...