[llvm-commits] [llvm] r173270 - in /llvm/trunk: include/llvm/MC/MCAsmInfo.h lib/MC/MCAsmInfo.cpp lib/Target/MSP430/MCTargetDesc/MSP430MCAsmInfo.cpp lib/Target/Mips/MCTargetDesc/MipsMCAsmInfo.cpp lib/Target/NVPTX/MCTargetDesc/NVPTXMCAsmInfo.cpp lib/Target/PowerPC/MCTargetDesc/PPCMCAsmInfo.cpp lib/Target/Sparc/MCTargetDesc/SparcMCAsmInfo.cpp

[Jim Grosbach]

Yeah. Found the old thread and responded. Let's consolidate there since that thread has all the relevant context

Thanks!
-Jim
On Feb 6, 2013, at 2:24 PM, Eli Bendersky <eliben at google.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote:
>> Hi Eli,
>> 
>> I really don't like this patch. This imposes additional burden on every target due to the odd requirements of one configuration of X86. That's really backwards. Can you elaborate on why you believe this is worth it?
>> 
> 
> Hi Jim,
> 
> This version was committed after a longish back-and-forth between
> Nadav, Evan and myself (start
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20130114/162561.html
> and look around to dig up all of it). We were considering a couple of
> approaches, but eventually Evan asked to write it this way for the
> sake of readability, since the alternative is an unsightly
> special-casing of 0 which makes code harder to understand. I agreed
> with him, and went ahead to change the patch to look like that.
> 
> FWIW, IMHO "imposes additional burden on every target due to the odd
> requirements of one configuration of X86" can be said about a lot of
> target-specific properties that currently exist. Assumptions have to
> broken all the time because they don't hold with certain targets.
> Pointer size != stack slot size is just another such assumption.
> 
> Eli