[LLVMdev] GenericValue changes from 1.8 to 2.0

[Sarah Thompson]

Sarah Thompson wrote:
> Chris Lattner wrote:
>   
>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Sarah Thompson wrote:
>>
>>   
>>     
>>> Do I understand correctly that there is nothing that the current gcc
>>> front end generates that wouldn't fit an old-style GenericValue? I'm
>>> wondering if this might be an interim approach that would avoid me
>>> needing to rewrite huge amounts of code, and since we're not likely to
>>> be supporting anything other than C and C++ in the forseeable future, it
>>> makes some sense. Model checking VHDL and Verilog can come later. :-)
>>>     
>>>       
>> Right now, the only interesting thing is 128-bit integers.  You can get 
>> these on 64-bit targets if you use some funky GCC extensions.  Normal code 
>> only produces "usual" sized integers.
>>   
>>     
Forget everything I said. I looked at the code a bit more, so it looks 
like I'm just going to have to suck it up and use the new GenericValue 
class and heavily reengineer the rest of my code. Attempting to use the 
old GenericValue with new-style bitcode doesn't look all that feasible, 
and looks like it would need far too much debugging into existence for 
my liking.

Were there any other major structural changes to lli between 1.8 and 
2.0, or was that basically the 'big one'? I'm currently thinking I might 
drop most of my code that was based on the 1.8 sources and basically 
start again from the 2.0 lli sources. A much bigger job than I'd 
anticipated, though it would be a lot worse if my backtracking memory 
implementation hadn't been kept separate.

Aaargh, etc. That'll teach me not to develop against the head branch...

[s]