[LLVMdev] [PATCH] - Union types, attempt 2

Talin viridia at gmail.com
Mon Jan 11 16:30:10 PST 2010

I'm working on a new version of the patch.

Another thing I wanted to ask about - do you prefer to have one giant patch
that has everything, or a series of incremental patches? I can see
advantages either way.

Normally I would want to do this as a series of incremental patches, however
this is a rather large project and it may take me quite a while before it's
completely done. I don't doubt that I will need some assistance when it
comes to the trickier parts (like the optimization aspects you mentioned.)
So there's a risk involved in submitting the first one or two patches,
because the final patch might not be ready in time for the next release.

On the other hand, it will be a lot easier for others to assist if we go
ahead and submit the initial work.

On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:

> On Jan 11, 2010, at 11:10 AM, Talin wrote:
> > Quick question - should unions enforce that all member types are unique?
> I realize that a union of { i32, i32 } doesn't make sense, but should the
> code actually forbid this?
> Either way works for me.
> > As far as constants go, as long as the initializer is an exact match for
> one of the member types, it should be no problem.
> Right, please propose a syntax and a class to use (ConstantUnion?) for it,
> -Chris

-- Talin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100111/5af69ee8/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list