[lld] r217324 - Remove dead code.

[Rui Ueyama]

On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org>
wrote:

>
>  2) Add a generic dictionary method to lld::File.  The dictionary might be
>>>>> empty for ELF and COFF readers, but the mach-o reader would populate the
>>>>> dictionary with some key/value encoding for each attribute it needs (e.g.
>>>>> “minOS” —> “10.9”).
>>>>>
>>>> I would like this, lld::File would become more flavor neutral with
>>> this. For example if you add minOS to lld::File it would not make sense for
>>> COFF/ELF.
>>>
>> There will be a default (do nothing) implementation for these methods in
>> the base class File.  COFF and ELF can just ignore them.  The dictionary
>> design is not a normal C++ pattern.
>>
> The LLVM IR also uses a metadata/dictionary model, to store attributes
> that are associated with the module. I think we also need a model that we
> can associate metadata with atoms.


Yeah, I'd guess that's sometimes useful indeed. I once hoped to have
something like that because it would be convenient. But at the same time,
there's a risk that it becomes a kitchen sink that we put everything there
in an disorganized manner. Named fields and named accessors are, on the
other hand, organized and type-safe. LLVM IR and the internal
representation of object files in LLD are naturally different. I'd think
adding a generic key-value store to an atom is too flexible for us.


>
> Shankar Easwaran
>
> --
> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted
> by the Linux Foundation
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20141110/268216b1/attachment.html>