[LLVMdev] inefficiencies in ConstantUniqueMap ?

[Jay Foad]

On 30 June 2011 14:07, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote:
> Hi Jay,
>
>> As I understand it, PATypeHolder, OpaqueType and the Module's
>> TypeSymbolTable are gone. Instead, StructTypes can optionally be
>> named, and if they are then:
>>
>> - they use name equivalence instead of structural equivalence.
>> - you can create them without any fields, and then add the fields
>> later when the struct is complete.
>
> I find this distinction between structs with names and structs without
> names strange.  Why is a name relevant to anything?  If you can add fields
> to a struct with a name why not to a struct without a name?

It's Chris's design and I don't feel qualified to speak on his behalf.
But... isn't this just the way C works? Structs either have a tag, or
some fields, or both, but definitely not neither? And structs with the
same tag are the same type in C, which is why the name is relevant.

Jay.