Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: > Is it possible for BitC on CLI to satisfy the representation > requirements for unions? I don't believe so, and this strikes me as an > area where CLI can/should be improved. I think it is possible, though perhaps I have missed some implications of what the requirements are. It would likely involve the creation of unverifiable IL, because the verification algorithm in the ECMA spec isn't sophisticated enough to understand why the code would be type- and memory-safe. Similarly, the CLI-targeting C++ compiler almost always generates unverifiable IL. The CLI VM can still run unverifiable code, and the semantics of executing unverifiable code are still well-defined as long as the code doesn't violate type- or memory-safety. The BitC compiler is in a position to know that it generates safe code.
The CLI has no support for bitfields, so bitfields in structures or defrepr unions would require the BitC compiler to emit mask and shift instruction sequences. _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
