[llvm-commits] [llvm] r46827 - memoperands #1

[Chris Lattner]

>>> This, and the question of whether to make LSBaseNode store a
>>> MemOperand
>>> instead of separate fields, are related.
>>
>> Ok, right.  What is your opinion on this?  Is there any reason not to
>> give MemOperand a VT and then give LSBaseNode a MemOperand?
>
> There's a little redundancy; the MemOperand has flags to distinguish
> between load and store, and LSBaseNode has its opcode which
> is either LOAD or STORE.  But that's not a big problem.

True, I don't think that an extra flag of redundancy is a big deal  
here. Code simplicity is worth it :)

>> Good question.  This sort of thing is currently rare enough that it  
>> is
>> probably fine to just use a null Value*, and have everything treat it
>> conservatively.  Would this be acceptable for now?
>
> Yes, using a null Value* is done in many places right now that
> don't yet provide a proper SourceValue.

Ok,

-Chris