On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Chad Rosier <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Aug 9, 2012, at 2:25 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > > Why two bits? Couldn't we say that there are two dialects, the default is > ATT, and there is a bit to select the intel dialect? > > > I'm fine with that approach. > > Do you expect us to ever need to have the IR model more dialects? > > > I don't expect it, but it's not out of the realm of possibilities. > Ok, not sure how much future-proofing you want to do here... If we're going to want more than 2 dialects, I would have the one bit say "non-standard dialect" and store which dialect in a side structure that can be omitted in most cases. I suspect that this would be a graceful progression though: Today: 1 bit, if it is set, "other" dialect is used. No need for side datastructure if the other dialect happens to be the Intel dialect. So we don't even include the side data structure. Future: We add the side datastructure, and if there is no further information there, assume Intel. The patches LGTM with the changes discussed. Comment appropriately the single-bit flag semantics of course. ;] Could you test (and implement) both ATT and Intel dialect setting in Clang?
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
