[LLVMdev] "UNREACHABLE executed!" error?

[Eugene Toder]

Are there any conceptual objections to the union type or is this just
due to incomplete implementation?

Eugene

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 1:32 AM, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote:
> Yeah, sounds good to me.  I strongly support ripping them out of mainline completely.
>
> -Chris
>
> On Aug 15, 2010, at 2:39 PM, Anton Korobeynikov wrote:
>
>> Hi, Chris
>>
>> What do you think about this?
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca>
>> Date: Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 01:34
>> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] "UNREACHABLE executed!" error?
>> To: Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info>
>> Cc: Alec Benzer <alecbenzer at gmail.com>, llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu
>>
>>
>> Anton Korobeynikov wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello
>>>
>>>> I just noticed that my union seems to look like an array....is that actually
>>>> a union or do I have a problem somewhere?
>>>
>>> Yes. Unions are pretty much broken and unimplemented. They can be
>>> removed pretty soon (say, after 2.8)
>>
>> We've never released with unions. Could we remove them for the 2.8
>> release instead of afterwards when they're part of our forever
>> forwards compatible bitcode format?
>>
>> Similar to what we did to the vfcmp and ficmp instructions maybe?
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov
>> Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>