Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "myenum".
2013 Jun 21
1
[LLVMdev] Proposal: type uniquing of debug info for LTO
...at do you mean by "name the metadata"? Are you referring to the name field
>> of the MDNode?
>
> Using named metadata rather than unnamed metadata.
>
> rather than having:
>
> !llvm.hardref = !{metadata !"foo.h::myClass", !3, metadata
> !"bar.h:myEnum", !4} ...
> !3 = ...;
> !4 = ...;
>
> we could simply have:
>
> !llvm.hardref.foo.h.myClass = ...;
> !llvm.hardref.bar.h.myClass = ...;
>
> or something like that.
From the documentation:
NamedMDNode - a tuple of MDNodes. Despite its name, a NamedMDNode isn't...
2013 Jun 21
0
[LLVMdev] Proposal: type uniquing of debug info for LTO
...gt;
> More details please :]
> What do you mean by "name the metadata"? Are you referring to the name field
> of the MDNode?
Using named metadata rather than unnamed metadata.
rather than having:
!llvm.hardref = !{metadata !"foo.h::myClass", !3, metadata
!"bar.h:myEnum", !4} ...
!3 = ...;
!4 = ...;
we could simply have:
!llvm.hardref.foo.h.myClass = ...;
!llvm.hardref.bar.h.myClass = ...;
or something like that.
(assuming solution (b), in solution (a) it'd look more like
"llvm.dbg.type.foo.h.myClass" - but the same idea (then we could skip...
2013 Jun 21
3
[LLVMdev] Proposal: type uniquing of debug info for LTO
More details please :]
What do you mean by "name the metadata"? Are you referring to the name field of the MDNode?
Thanks,
Manman
On Jun 21, 2013, at 7:19 AM, David Blaikie wrote:
>
> On Jun 21, 2013 1:19 AM, "Jeremy Lakeman" <Jeremy.Lakeman at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Wouldn't it be simpler to name the metadata based on the hash of the content?