[LLVMdev] Suggestion: Support union types in IR

[Chris Lattner]

On Jan 4, 2009, at 5:07 AM, Jon Harrop wrote:
>> Okay, so you're just talking about boxed vs unboxed discriminated
>> unions, or "by ref" vs "by value" discriminated unions.  Clearly the
>> LLVM IR support for "c style unions" would only be useful for
>> "unboxed" or "byvalue" discriminated unions.  That doesn't mean that
>> *your* specific uses would need them.
>
> Yes. I expect relatively few people would need C-style unions.

We obviously don't have them yet, so there hasn't been a driving need  
to make it happen.

>> If you're doing "by-ref" or "boxed" unions, then our current  
>> support should
>> already be sufficient.
>
> Yes, LLVM's existing support is fine.
>
> Incidentally, is there any way for LLVM users to vote on a "wish  
> list" in such
> a way that developers can see which features are most sought after?

Nope, but you can add things to the open projects list if you want.

-Chris