* Jonathan S. Shapiro: > 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.
Given the Ada/GNAT experience, I don't think representation requirements at the language level are a good thing. There are just too many ambiguities, and it's rather difficult to fit these requirements on existing backends (but GNAT managed to do it even for the JVM). If you write your own backend, this may not be an issue. But it will make porting to anything else very difficult. IMHO, a library-based solution which combines address arithmetic with bare-metal loads and stores is more desirable. But you'd need some form of compile-time meta-programming to ensure safety while preserving succinctness. _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
