diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'llvm/docs/HistoricalNotes/2001-02-13-Reference-Memory.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | llvm/docs/HistoricalNotes/2001-02-13-Reference-Memory.txt | 39 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 39 deletions
diff --git a/llvm/docs/HistoricalNotes/2001-02-13-Reference-Memory.txt b/llvm/docs/HistoricalNotes/2001-02-13-Reference-Memory.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 2c7534d9da1..00000000000 --- a/llvm/docs/HistoricalNotes/2001-02-13-Reference-Memory.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,39 +0,0 @@ -Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 13:29:52 -0600 (CST) -From: Chris Lattner <sabre@nondot.org> -To: Vikram S. Adve <vadve@cs.uiuc.edu> -Subject: LLVM Concerns... - - -I've updated the documentation to include load store and allocation -instructions (please take a look and let me know if I'm on the right -track): - -file:/home/vadve/lattner/llvm/docs/LangRef.html#memoryops - -I have a couple of concerns I would like to bring up: - -1. Reference types - Right now, I've spec'd out the language to have a pointer type, which - works fine for lots of stuff... except that Java really has - references: constrained pointers that cannot be manipulated: added and - subtracted, moved, etc... Do we want to have a type like this? It - could be very nice for analysis (pointer always points to the start of - an object, etc...) and more closely matches Java semantics. The - pointer type would be kept for C++ like semantics. Through analysis, - C++ pointers could be promoted to references in the LLVM - representation. - -2. Our "implicit" memory references in assembly language: - After thinking about it, this model has two problems: - A. If you do pointer analysis and realize that two stores are - independent and can share the same memory source object, there is - no way to represent this in either the bytecode or assembly. - B. When parsing assembly/bytecode, we effectively have to do a full - SSA generation/PHI node insertion pass to build the dependencies - when we don't want the "pinned" representation. This is not - cool. - I'm tempted to make memory references explicit in both the assembly and - bytecode to get around this... what do you think? - --Chris - |
