Displaying 7 results from an estimated 7 matches for "typesystemchang".
Did you mean:
typesystemchanges
2004 Aug 21
3
[LLVMdev] More Encoding Ideas
...we should always write UByteTyID and SByteTyID as a single byte?
>
> Long term, LLVM's distinction between signed and unsigned will go away. Talk to
> Chris about that. :)
If you're interested in the plans, they are described in some detail here:
http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/TypeSystemChanges.txt
Note that there is no concrete timeline for this to happen, it basically
depends on when someone is ambitious enough to start working on it.
In any case, both signed and unsigned 8-bit constants can be written out
in a single byte. Again, do you think it's worth special casing this
tho...
2004 Aug 21
0
[LLVMdev] More Encoding Ideas
...and SByteTyID as a single byte?
> >
> > Long term, LLVM's distinction between signed and unsigned will go away.
> Talk to
> > Chris about that. :)
>
>If you're interested in the plans, they are described in some detail here:
>http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/TypeSystemChanges.txt
>
>Note that there is no concrete timeline for this to happen, it basically
>depends on when someone is ambitious enough to start working on it.
>
>In any case, both signed and unsigned 8-bit constants can be written out
>in a single byte. Again, do you think it's worth...
2008 Sep 19
2
[LLVMdev] non-signed integer Type
Hi
Is there any rationale written down for why integer types don't carry
(perhaps optional) signs somewhere? I feel like I might have read it
somewhere before (and I see that it used to exist pre 2.0), but I
can't find anything now.
Relatedly, is there a reasonable way to attach user-data to a type or
something? It feels very cumbersome to have to wrap all values and
types in my front
2006 Oct 17
0
[LLVMdev] Signedness Elminiation
...student at
the University there. Sheng and I will be working together on some
significant changes to LLVM in the coming months. Our first task is to
implement integer types without signs in LLVM. You can read Chris
Lattner's notes on this change at this
URL:http://nondot.org/~sabre/LLVMNotes/TypeSystemChanges.txt.
Additionally, PR950 will track the implementation of this feature. You
can keep track of our progress by going here: http://llvm.org/PR950
If you have any technical questions, please feel free to ask.
Thanks,
Reid.
2004 Aug 21
2
[LLVMdev] More Encoding Ideas
On Fri, 2004-08-20 at 17:55, Robert Mykland wrote:
> At 05:09 PM 8/20/2004, Chris Lattner wrote:
> >
> >If you're interested in the plans, they are described in some detail here:
> >http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/TypeSystemChanges.txt
> >
> >Note that there is no concrete timeline for this to happen, it basically
> >depends on when someone is ambitious enough to start working on it.
> >
> >In any case, both signed and unsigned 8-bit constants can be written out
> >in a single byte. Agai...
2004 Aug 20
0
[LLVMdev] More Encoding Ideas
Robert Mykland wrote:
> Dear Chris and Reid:
Hi Robert.
>
> Some other random ideas I've had as I've been sifting through the new
> bytecode format. Please let me know what you think.
>
> 1) ANSI C allows for char to default to unsigned char. This is I guess
> not how it normally is in GCC. If char defaulted to unsigned char
> several things would be
2004 Aug 20
4
[LLVMdev] More Encoding Ideas
Dear Chris and Reid:
Some other random ideas I've had as I've been sifting through the new
bytecode format. Please let me know what you think.
1) ANSI C allows for char to default to unsigned char. This is I guess not
how it normally is in GCC. If char defaulted to unsigned char several
things would be possible. Single char constants that are defined would be
almost always stored