Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "paramattr_group_block".
2016 Oct 13
4
Status of docs/BitCodeFormat.rst?
...ther (or how) to approach fixing this incrementally. For example, in trying to document the new paramattr format, I noticed that the type format is also outdated, and there is a conflict in block ids (i.e. the old TYPE_BLOCK format which is documented used blockid=10, but blockid=10 is now used for PARAMATTR_GROUP_BLOCK), so that fixing the paramattr docs on their own might introduce inconsistencies. Would it be better to try & bring the whole document up to date at once, or would it be fine to do it incrementally & possibly introduce some strangeness in the intermediate steps?
Thanks,
Ismail
2016 Oct 13
2
Status of docs/BitCodeFormat.rst?
...ther (or how) to approach fixing this incrementally. For example, in trying to document the new paramattr format, I noticed that the type format is also outdated, and there is a conflict in block ids (i.e. the old TYPE_BLOCK format which is documented used blockid=10, but blockid=10 is now used for PARAMATTR_GROUP_BLOCK),
>
> For this particular example, it should just be removed I think. If I read correctly the history the TYPE_BLOCK was a 2.9 thing.
>
> —
> Mehdi
>
>
>> so that fixing the paramattr docs on their own might introduce inconsistencies. Would it be better to try &...