[LLVMdev] Status of YAML IO?

[Nick Kledzik]

On Oct 30, 2012, at 7:53 PM, Shankar Easwaran wrote:

> Hi Nick,
>> Can you be more specific in your proposal.  What method(s) would you add to the the Atom class(es)?  I thought you were thinking of a generic uint32_t DefinedAtom::flags() method where the meaning of each bit in the uint32_t returned was platform specific.  How can that work with a min/max range?
>> 
> The range of flags would be integers ranging from LOW_PROC .. HIGH_PROC.
> 
> The Generic flags would be within the range less than LOW_PROC  and greater HIGH_PROC. Any value within the range LOW_PROC .. HIGH_PROC is os/platform specific.
> 
> What I was thinking was there could be a uint32_t flags() in the definedAtom which returns the flags, and platforms can act accordingly on the meaning of the flags in their pieces of code.
> 
> What do you think ?
You still have not given an example of what information is missing in the current Atom model that is driving the need for this.

It sounds like your flags() returns a value - not a set of bits.  Which means it can only be used for one thing.  What if you need two or more kinds of information/attributes not in the Atom model?   I don't see why LOW_PROC, HIGH_PROC is needed.  If we decide there are new kinds of information/attributes that are general we would just define new methods on Atom, rather than define a value to be returned by flags().

-Nick