[LLVMdev] Union type, is it really used or necessary?

[Chris Lattner]

On Sep 7, 2010, at 8:16 AM, Talin wrote:

> Here's a suggestion - can we make the "union patch" (the inverse of the patch that removed unions) as a downloadable file so that people who are interested in finishing the work can do so?

It already is.  I reverted it with one commit, so you can obtain that patch with 'svn diff'.

-Chris

> 
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 7:55 AM, Renato Golin <rengolin at systemcall.org> wrote:
> On 7 September 2010 15:36, Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info> wrote:
> > Otherwise the feature being unused will quickly became broken.
> 
> It was already broken for ages... :/
> 
> Even if you're not using the backends (or MC), having it in front-end
> only will only confuse new users that will try to use it and hope it
> just works (my case, a few months ago).
> 
> If there is nothing, you just work around it (by adding new features
> to structs, if necessary) or re-create unions, depending on your
> commitment to the union problem. Although having an union type would
> be quite an improvement to IR readability, I really don't need it that
> badly to write the whole back-end for it.
> 
> It's just a matter of priorities, unfortunately... :(
> 
> --
> cheers,
> --renato
> 
> http://systemcall.org/
> 
> Reclaim your digital rights, eliminate DRM, learn more at
> http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> -- Talin
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100907/0c3b520e/attachment.html>