[LLVMdev] Union type, is it really used or necessary?

[Talin]

Here's a suggestion - can we make the "union patch" (the inverse of the
patch that removed unions) as a downloadable file so that people who are
interested in finishing the work can do so?

On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 7:55 AM, Renato Golin <rengolin at systemcall.org>wrote:

> On 7 September 2010 15:36, Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info>
> wrote:
> > Otherwise the feature being unused will quickly became broken.
>
> It was already broken for ages... :/
>
> Even if you're not using the backends (or MC), having it in front-end
> only will only confuse new users that will try to use it and hope it
> just works (my case, a few months ago).
>
> If there is nothing, you just work around it (by adding new features
> to structs, if necessary) or re-create unions, depending on your
> commitment to the union problem. Although having an union type would
> be quite an improvement to IR readability, I really don't need it that
> badly to write the whole back-end for it.
>
> It's just a matter of priorities, unfortunately... :(
>
> --
> cheers,
> --renato
>
> http://systemcall.org/
>
> Reclaim your digital rights, eliminate DRM, learn more at
> http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>



-- 
-- Talin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100907/c76d435d/attachment.html>