search for: t_union

...similar to a structure with + a single element - that is, a single typed element surrounded + by braces (<tt>{}</tt>)). For example: "<tt>{ i32 4 }</tt>". A + single-element constant struct can be implicitly converted to a + <a href="#t_union">union type</a> as long as the type of the struct + element matches the type of one of the union members.</dd> + It's a minor point, but I'd avoid the term "implicitly converted". Constants.cpp: - assert(Idx->getType()->isInteger(32) && +...

...f getting them in the 2.8 release? > > Zero. So a feature, of which a subset was actually working (I know this because I am using unions successfully in the compiler I'm working on) in the 2.7 release and was documented on the web site http://llvm.org/releases/2.7/docs/LangRef.html#t_union just gets yanked? Are you really trying to tell me that anyone using LLVM in anger needs to be running SVN HEAD and keep an eye on the mailing list to make sure that features they use aren't going to get arbitrarily yanked? Erik -- -----------------------------------------------------------...

ping... On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > OK here's a new version of the patch - and the unions.ll test actually > passes :) > > On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Jan 16, 2010, at 11:15 AM, Talin wrote: >> >> OK here's the patch for real this

On Sep 7, 2010, at 2:24 PM, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: > Eli Friedman wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 8:16 AM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: >>> Here's a suggestion - can we make the "union patch" (the inverse of the >>> patch that removed unions) as a downloadable file so that people who are >>> interested in finishing the work

Eli Friedman wrote: > On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 8:16 AM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > > Here's a suggestion - can we make the "union patch" (the inverse of the > > patch that removed unions) as a downloadable file so that people who are > > interested in finishing the work can do so? > > Anyone who's really interested in working on it can

...gt; with > + a single element - that is, a single typed element surrounded > + by braces (<tt>{}</tt>)). For example: "<tt>{ i32 4 }</tt>". A > + single-element constant struct can be implicitly converted to a > + <a href="#t_union">union type</a> as long as the type of the struct > + element matches the type of one of the union members.</dd> > + > > It's a minor point, but I'd avoid the term "implicitly converted". > done > > Constants.cpp: > > - assert...

...or Opaque type? Which implies no one was expecting a UnionType there... Also, if I generate the object code directly, llc fails too... Is there any plan to implement the union type? The work-around is quite ugly... cheers, --renato http://systemcall.org/ [1] http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#t_union