[LLVMdev] PointerType API Change
sabre at nondot.org
Mon Dec 17 14:55:24 PST 2007
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007, Christopher Lamb wrote:
>> I know that this approach might not really encourage developers to
>> address space issues. Are they important and widespread enough that
>> everybody should (or is proper address space handling trivial enough)?
> I don't have particularly strong feelings about this, however Chris did
> mention that he would like passes to take address spaces into account.
> Handling them properly is pretty trivial, I believe.
My opinion is that we don't want to have "second rate" features that are
subtly broken. In fact, Christophers conversion from using
PointerType::get to use PointerType::getUnqual did expose several bugs
(which were easy to fix once found).
Unfortunately, we don't guarantee API stability across llvm releases, so I
think that this breakage is reasonable. It is also really trivial to hack
around this locally while in migration: just default the address space
specifier in PointerType::get() to default to 0 in your local tree.
More information about the llvm-dev