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

[Erik de Castro Lopo]

Eli Friedman wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 8:16 AM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> Anyone who's really interested in working on it can just use "svn diff
> -c 112356", and apply it with "patch -R".

Well I tried that, the patch fails to reverse apply. Out of the
34 files touched by the patch, not a single hunk actually manages
to reverse apply.

Assuming I was to decide to embark on the effort of getting unions
back into LLVM:

  a) What is required for them to be accepted back in?

  b) What are the chances of getting them in the 2.8 release?

Erik
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Erik de Castro Lopo
http://www.mega-nerd.com/