On Jul 27, 2020, at 2:55 AM, Alexander Richardson <Alexander.Richardson at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > > Hi Chris, > > While I'd love to simply remove the "= 0" parameter immediately, there > are (after my initial patch to remove if from llvm/IR) currently at > least 275 uses of getPointerTo() and 195 PointerType::getUnqual(). > Unfortunately, it's not always obvious what the right address space > should be. Should it be a pointer to code/globals/the stack? > > The reason I used the ugly LLVM_DEFAULT_AS_PARAM approach is so that I > can incrementally remove those uses from certain directories and > prevent new uses from being added. > Preventing new uses is extremely important for our downstream fork, > but not so much for most targets currently in upstream LLVM. Makes sense. The macro isnât really appropriate for upstream, but I can see how it is super useful for your purposes. > > Therefore, I will remove the =0 locally and submit incremental patches > to remove those uses instead of using the LLVM_DEFAULT_AS_PARAM > approach. This is a great approach. > Hopefully there won't be many new uses of the old APIs being added in > the meantime. > Once this is complete I'll add new deprecated overloads that still > have the =0, to allow gradual migration for downstreams and remove > them after a few weeks/months/when the next release branch is created. > Does that sound like a better approach? Yes, this sounds awesome. Thank you Alexander! -Chris
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4