>>> This, and the question of whether to make LSBaseNode store a >>> MemOperand >>> instead of separate fields, are related. >> >> Ok, right. What is your opinion on this? Is there any reason not to >> give MemOperand a VT and then give LSBaseNode a MemOperand? > > There's a little redundancy; the MemOperand has flags to distinguish > between load and store, and LSBaseNode has its opcode which > is either LOAD or STORE. But that's not a big problem.
True, I don't think that an extra flag of redundancy is a big deal here. Code simplicity is worth it :) >> Good question. This sort of thing is currently rare enough that it >> is >> probably fine to just use a null Value*, and have everything treat it >> conservatively. Would this be acceptable for now? > > Yes, using a null Value* is done in many places right now that > don't yet provide a proper SourceValue. Ok, -Chris _______________________________________________ llvm-commits mailing list llvm-commits@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
