Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "genericmdnod".
Did you mean:
genericmdnode
2014 Nov 10
5
[LLVMdev] [RFC] Separating Metadata from the Value hierarchy
...t;temporary" concept for `MDNode` into a separate
subclass, so that non-forward-reference `MDNode`s don't have to pay for
RAUW overhead.
The class hierarchy I envision looks something like this:
Metadata
MDNode
TempMDNode // MDNodeFwdRef?
UniquableMDNode // GenericMDNode?
DINode // Is this layer useful?
DILocation
DIScope
DIType
DIBasicType
DICompositeType
...
DISubprogram
...
DICompileUnit
...
MDString
ValueAsMetadata...
2014 Nov 10
12
[LLVMdev] [RFC] Separating Metadata from the Value hierarchy
TL;DR: If you use metadata (especially if it's out-of-tree), check the
numbered list of lost functionality below to see whether I'm trying to
break your compiler permanently.
In response to my recent commits (e.g., [1]) that changed API from
`MDNode` to `Value`, Eric had a really interesting idea [2] -- split
metadata entirely from the `Value` hierarchy, and drop general support
for