search for: gepd

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...

> On Feb 6, 2015, at 6:40 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com <mailto:rnk at google.com>> wrote: > 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 &...

...> wrote: > > On Feb 6, 2015, at 6:40 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > >> 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 %s...

It's an idea been thrown around in a few different threads (including Rafael's recent http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20141201/247285.html and Chandler's http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=226781&view=rev ) so I'm putting up my hand to volunteer to do the work & interested in getting a bit more feedback, thoughts on best approaches, timing,