[LLVMdev] PointerType API Change

Chris Lattner 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 
>>  consider
>>  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 mailing list