[LLVMdev] recommended workaround for distinguishing signed vs unsigned integers

[David Blaikie]

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:04 PM, Timothee Cour <
timothee.cour2+llvm at gmail.com> wrote:

> Since llvm doesn't distinguish signed vs unsigned integers anymore, what
> is the recommended way to represent a language that distinguishes them?
>

Distinguishes them how? The IR doesn't have to distinguish everything your
source language does.

If, for example, your language supports overloading based on type (and
unsigned and signed types are distinct types), much like Clang does for
C++, you would mangle those source-level types into the function name to
create distinct functions, regardless of the matching/non-matching nature
of the actual argument types.

Where else do you need to distinguish them?


> Is that to introduce new types, eg:
> %SignedI32 = type { i32 }
> %UnsignedI32 = type { i32 }
> ?
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150218/95c6eaee/attachment.html>