[LLVMdev] More Encoding Ideas

[Robert Mykland]

Chris & Reid,

In fact, the primitive that means "function" could stand for "function 
pointer" and new number could be added to the end of the list, if needed, 
that just means "function".  As far as I can see, the "function" type slots 
are never used.

-- Robert.

At 11:36 PM 8/23/2004, you wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Aug 2004, Reid Spencer wrote:
> > > If all pointer types are implied, not a problem to create them.  However,
> > > in larger files it may cost a little due to slightly larger type
> > > numbers.  I'm not sure about the tradeoff here, but I expect that implied
> > > pointers would still save more just because of pointers to function 
> types.
> >
> > Pointers are used heavily in almost all languages. I can almost
> > guarantee that the "tradeoff" would be larger bytecode files. The use of
> > pointers to function types is not all that frequent so I wouldn't expect
>
>Note that every LLVM function involves creating a pointer to function, so
>it might be a good idea to implicitly encode pointers for every function
>type (there is no other way to use a function type in any case).  If you
>guys are microoptimizing the bc format, this is an idea.  *shrug*
>
>-Chris
>
>--
>http://llvm.org/
>http://nondot.org/sabre/
>
>_______________________________________________
>LLVM Developers mailing list
>LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>http://mail.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

Robert Mykland               Voice: (831) 462-6725
Founder/CTO                   Ascenium Corporation