Intrinsic mangling and typeless pointers

[David Blaikie via llvm-commits]

Yep, agreed on all counts - and would be happy to find some volunteers to
help out with the typeless pointer work, but I do intend to get back around
to it (probably need to do some inventorying myself so I can point others
to the right places/direction/overall approach at the very least).

- Dave

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 6:51 AM Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 3 October 2016 at 06:46, Artur Pilipenko <apilipenko at azulsystems.com>
> wrote:
> > The only reason for intrinsic mangling is the way to get a unique
> symbolic
> > name. One we have typeless pointers I expect that pointer arguments are
> > mangled as ‘p’ and we won’t have any headache with remangling. But now we
> > still can have two overloaded intrinsics which only differ by pointer
> type:
> > declare @llvm.intrinsic(i8* p)
> > declare @llvm.intrinsic(i32* p)
>
> My thought was to allow overloading such that the above would be legal
> IR, but I can see the annoyance in supporting that. Given that the
> mangling becomes trivial once we have typeless pointers (and therefore
> non-cyclic types), I guess there is nothing do to about it for now.
>
> Thanks,
> Rafael
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20161003/f3d498f3/attachment.html>