On Dec 4, 2012, at 11:39 AM, Eric Christopher <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Bill Wendling <[email protected]> wrote: > On Dec 4, 2012, at 11:11 AM, Eric Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Chris Lattner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Dec 4, 2012, at 9:36 AM, Eric Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Doesn't really matter. > > > > Small savings of debug info size? > > > > > > They're the same size? > > > > Wait, do you mean in the IR? Then yeah, we could probably just replace the > > upper bound with a count and go from there I think. > > > Yeah. In fact, it'll be a bit less of a hack than making the lower bound > > upper bound for unbounded subranges. I'll make the change. > > > Thank you. > > Eventually, we'll want to support the upper bound being a DIE, so that it can > refer to the variable it's defined with -- 'n' in this case: > > void foo(int n) { > int bork[n]; > /* */ > } > > etc. > > Mmm... you mean expression yes? > Er yeah. :) -bw _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
