[llvm-dev] RFC: Representing unions in TBAA

[Flamedoge via llvm-dev]

As far as my limited understanding goes, this should be a bugfix
(correctness) and it should trump backward compatibility requirement. It
makes no sense to me to continue backward compatible incorrectness.

Kevin

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Steven Perron via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> I could make something like Daniel's suggestion work.  The main question I
> still have is how we tell the difference between the "old-style" DAG and
> the "new-style" DAG?  I don't know if there is some standard way of doing
> this.  Do we just base it on the version of llvm-ir?
>
> Would there be a need to maintain different code for both type of DAG?  If
> we change clang to generate the new-style DAG, things will be fine for
> C/C++.  However, will this force other components that generate llvm-ir to
> change?
>
> In general, what kind of backwards compatibility do we need to keep?
>
> Later,
> Steven Perron
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170309/5c20eab3/attachment-0001.html>