search for: typesystemrewrit

Several people have been proding me to write up my thoughts on how to fix the IR type system for LLVM 3.0. Here are some (fairly stream of conscious) thoughts on the matter: http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/TypeSystemRewrite.txt Comments welcome! -Chris

Hi, Question 1: Will the new type system allow to incrementally build structs (instead of filling all the fields in one go, as in the example given in <http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/TypeSystemRewrite.txt>? Question 2: Will the ocaml bindings to be updated to work with the new type system once the merging of the rewrite to the main branch is done? Thanks very much, N

...at, Feb 26, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > Several people have been proding me to write up my thoughts on how to fix the IR  type system for LLVM 3.0.  Here are some (fairly stream of conscious) thoughts on the matter: > http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/TypeSystemRewrite.txt Awesome! This is definitely long overdue... Proposal seems very reasonable to me, I think the linker logic will become much nicer overall by making things more explicit. Strictly speaking, does this need to be a 3.0 feature? I haven't thought about it, and don't know that part of th...

...Vitaly, I didn't add this API, because I'm not very familiar with the C API. It should be very straight-forward: just expose a wrapper for "StructType::setBody" and "StructType::createNamed". Some motivation for the change is here: http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/TypeSystemRewrite.txt -Chris

On 26 February 2011 21:25, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > Several people have been proding me to write up my thoughts on how to fix the IR  type system for LLVM 3.0.  Here are some (fairly stream of conscious) thoughts on the matter: > http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/TypeSystemRewrite.txt Hi Chris, I don't see such a bad problem with PATypeHolder, but I get what you say about the type refinement. In the end, the logic is the same. You hold the type in a temporary state, build it as you go and mark it as "complete" when you finish. If you use type holders or the...

On 25 June 2011 13:00, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: >> 3. Clang/dragonegg need to adapt to the new API (help appreciated!) > > what needs to be done exactly? Background info: http://www.nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/TypeSystemRewrite.txt As I understand it, PATypeHolder, OpaqueType and the Module's TypeSymbolTable are gone. Instead, StructTypes can optionally be named, and if they are then: - they use name equivalence instead of structural equivalence. - you can create them without any fields, and then add the fields lat...

Hi Chris, > 3. Clang/dragonegg need to adapt to the new API (help appreciated!) what needs to be done exactly? Ciao, Duncan.

...t, Feb 26, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > Several people have been proding me to write up my thoughts on how to fix the IR  type system for LLVM 3.0.  Here are some (fairly stream of conscious) thoughts on the matter: > http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/TypeSystemRewrite.txt > > Comments welcome! So struct types would unique by name. How important would it be for the linker to preserve those names? Because I can think of a few examples where it could be problematic. For instance, if you want to link %Foo = type { i32 } %Bar = type { i32 } %myFoo = g...

On 11-02-26 4:25 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > Several people have been proding me to write up my thoughts on how to fix the IR type system for LLVM 3.0. Here are some (fairly stream of conscious) thoughts on the matter: > http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/TypeSystemRewrite.txt Thanks! > Comments welcome! Having fewer types makes the job of the passes easier. Right now we maintain a small number of types as we go, which is expensive. In the proposed change, would it still be legal to write a type merging pass? For example, lets say we have %Foo = type {...

Hi James, Sorry I missed this. Please send things to the list, not to me directly. On Jul 20, 2011, at 9:52 PM, james woodyatt wrote: > One thing that springs to mind after reading the <http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/TypeSystemRewrite.txt> note is that the vocabulary seems a bit confusing. > >> This argues for terminology along the lines of: >> >> Named structs. >> Unnamed structs (named structs with no names) >> Anonymous structs (things like complex, which cannot be cyclic) > >...

...re for the type later on. Andrew On 02/26/2011 04:25 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > Several people have been proding me to write up my thoughts on how to fix the IR type system for LLVM 3.0. Here are some (fairly stream of conscious) thoughts on the matter: > http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/TypeSystemRewrite.txt > > Comments welcome! > > -Chris > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

...25:32 PM > Subject: [LLVMdev] LLVM IR Type System Rewrite > > Several people have been proding me to write up my thoughts on how to fix the >IR type system for LLVM 3.0. Here are some (fairly stream of conscious) >thoughts on the matter: > http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/TypeSystemRewrite.txt > > Comments welcome! > > -Chris > _______________________________________________ > LLVM M Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >

...11:59 AM, Jay Foad wrote: > On 25 June 2011 13:00, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: >>> 3. Clang/dragonegg need to adapt to the new API (help appreciated!) >> >> what needs to be done exactly? > > Background info: http://www.nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/TypeSystemRewrite.txt > > As I understand it, PATypeHolder, OpaqueType and the Module's > TypeSymbolTable are gone. Instead, StructTypes can optionally be > named, and if they are then: > > - they use name equivalence instead of structural equivalence. > - you can create them without any...