[LLVMdev] [proposal] Extensible IR metadata
clattner at apple.com
Sat Sep 12 12:52:30 PDT 2009
On Sep 11, 2009, at 9:00 PM, Nick Lewycky wrote:
> Chris Lattner wrote:
>> On Sep 11, 2009, at 7:17 PM, Nick Lewycky wrote:
>>> Dan Gohman wrote:
>>>> On Sep 11, 2009, at 9:57 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:
>>>>> Devang's work on debug info prompted this, thoughts welcome:
>>>> The document mentions "instructions" a lot. We'll want to be able
>>>> apply metadata to ConstantExprs as well at least, if not also
>>>> (think noalias) and other stuff, so it seems best to just talk
>>>> "values" instead, and DenseMap<Value *, ...> instead of
>>>> DenseMap<Instruction *, ...>.
>>> I'm wondering that too. Can we replace LLVM function attributes
>>> with metadata? There's been some pushback to adding new function
>>> attributes in the past and it would be nice to be able to
>>> prototype new ones without having to change all of the vm core.
>> The pushback has been about adding lots of weird and special
>> purpose extensions, not the encoding.
> The bar is higher for getting something into the vm core, as it
> should be. It sounds like we're planning to permit special purpose
> metadata which is why I asked.
> If nothing else, it would be more convenient to prototype new
> extensions to find out what they're really worth.
Yep, I completely agree!
More information about the llvm-dev