[LLVMdev] Enhancing TableGen

Jakob Stoklund Olesen stoklund at 2pi.dk
Tue Oct 11 09:53:54 PDT 2011

On Oct 11, 2011, at 9:08 AM, David A. Greene wrote:

> Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> writes:
>> Please confirm that you have understood the message from Evan and me
>> that we disagree with the general direction of removing redundancy
>> from instruction definitions, and that your patches to that effect
>> will be rejected.
> Yes, I get it.  I think I have said that before.

Excellent. I am sorry for the harsh tone, but you seemed to have completely missed the point of the thread.

Clearly, that wasn't the case.

> I'm talking about the for loop and paste support needed to implement
> loops as first described by Che-Liang and as worked out by he and I to
> improve the syntax.  This would be used for top-level defs only.  For
> example, in the register definition example Che-Liang gave originally.
> I will not change anything before the 3.0 branch.  But I am working on
> this functionality with the understanding that it is desired.  Please
> tell me now if we've changed our minds.

No, I think for-loops for top-level defs could be a useful feature.

I don't want to allow for-loops inside multiclasses.  The multiclasses and for-loops provide essentially the same macro functionality with different syntax.  Mixing them would lead to a very confusing language.


More information about the llvm-dev mailing list