search for: gep_ptr

...s like it's functioning, I could start porting IRbuilder and Clang over to the new store operations & other sources of pointers. Then remove the old stuff. Are IR instructions overloadable like this? If not, would it be worthwhile to introduce separate names for the typeless-pointer forms (gep_ptr, store_ptr, etc) as a temporary means to have both sets of semantics then rename them all back once the old ones are removed? Other ideas/thoughts? - David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/2015...

On Feb 7, 2012, at 1:29 AM, Fraser Cormack wrote: > > Sorry, I was being an idiot and was trying to link the wrong file type. Sigh. > > Now I have a problem where I merge two modules each containing the same > struct, one opaque and one defined, and it's not merging the two > consistently. I have two, let's say > > %"StructA" = type opaque >

Sorry, I was being an idiot and was trying to link the wrong file type. Sigh. Now I have a problem where I merge two modules each containing the same struct, one opaque and one defined, and it's not merging the two consistently. I have two, let's say %"StructA" = type opaque %"StructB" = type opaque in one module, and in the other: %"StructA" = type { i8 }

...ing, I could start porting IRbuilder and > Clang over to the new store operations & other sources of pointers. Then > remove the old stuff. > > Are IR instructions overloadable like this? If not, would it be worthwhile > to introduce separate names for the typeless-pointer forms (gep_ptr, > store_ptr, etc) as a temporary means to have both sets of semantics then > rename them all back once the old ones are removed? > > Other ideas/thoughts? > > - David > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Intel Israel (74) Limited &g...

...builder and >> Clang over to the new store operations & other sources of pointers. Then >> remove the old stuff. >> >> Are IR instructions overloadable like this? If not, would it be >> worthwhile to introduce separate names for the typeless-pointer forms >> (gep_ptr, store_ptr, etc) as a temporary means to have both sets of >> semantics then rename them all back once the old ones are removed? >> >> Other ideas/thoughts? >> >> - David >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing...