<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 01/13/2015 10:33 PM, Chandler
Carruth wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAGCO0KiJ96bmKECB4BfMrxOM5ZrnYmXg_Tvg88kFCcmMp13_4Q@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 10:27 PM,
Sameer Sahasrabuddhe <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:sameer.sahasrabuddhe@amd.com"
target="_blank">sameer.sahasrabuddhe@amd.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Ping! We
need to close on whether everyone is convinced that
symbolic memory scopes have a significant advantage over
opaque numbers. Either of them will be examined by
optimizations using a target-implemented API. I personally
don't think that readability in the LLVM text format is
worth the effort, especially given that address spaces
work well enough with opaque numbers.</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I am much more comfortable with symbolic memory scopes.
The reason I feel this way is actually because there *is*
a particular ordering of them that the target will
mandate. Having an ordering but having it *not* be the
order of the numbers used seems too actively confusing to
me. <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Chandler, while I agree with you, I'm not sure this should block
forward progress. Having the scope markers as opaque integers
doesn't block us from later adding a side table of string names and
changing the IR representation. Forward serialization would be
fairly straight forward as long as you didn't care about the
resulting name. Why don't we let this move forward with numeric IDs
and then come back with string names at some point in the future?<br>
<br>
Philip<br>
</body>
</html>