[PATCH] D12618: Reserve a vendor reserved block ID for bitcode

[Alex Rosenberg via llvm-commits]

Yes, something like that. I don't feel a need to bikeshed the shape of it, but it should be documented and vendor IDs of whatever form should be assigned/committed into the source. I'd suggest that each vendor get only one ID and subsequent data be used to differentiate internal cases. We will want to discourage cowboy corporations just picking their own IDs and not registering them with the project.

Alex

> On Sep 17, 2015, at 2:39 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Sep 10, 2015, at 7:47 PM, Alex Rosenberg <alexr at leftfield.org> wrote:
>> 
>> alexr added a subscriber: alexr.
>> alexr added a comment.
>> 
>> So, we went through this last year.... http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2014-November/078498.html
>> 
>> If we add a vendor block, we should at a minimum define a way to identify which vendor it is, in case we are handed bitcode from somewhere else.
>> Bike shed away, but there should be something simple enough at the start that can tell us we're looking at the wrong thing.
> 
> 
> The way I do it internally right now is by using a “magic” at the beginning of the block. We could ask “by convention” implementer to always write a (32bits?) unique id at the beginning of the block, but it would be up to the vendor to follow this convention. Does this match what you have in mind?
> 
> ― 
> Mehdi