On Aug 9, 2012, at 2:33 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
> 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…
Agreed.
> 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.
Sounds fine.
> Future: We add the side datastructure, and if there is no further information
> there, assume Intel.
The underlying data structure of the Attribute class is a bit vector. Adding a
side data structure would fundamentally change this class… but I don't think
it's something we need to worry about..
>
> The patches LGTM with the changes discussed. Comment appropriately the
> single-bit flag semantics of course. ;]
Will do.
> Could you test (and implement) both ATT and Intel dialect setting in Clang?
I believe I have enough of the code in place now to do proper testing.. so,
sure!
Thanks for the feedback, Chandler.
Chad
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
