[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