wingo added a comment.
In D101140#2786777 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D101140#2786777>, @jrtc27 wrote:
> Is it just me or does having a backend-specific type in target-independent
> code feel wrong? It feels like there should be a space for target-specific
> TargetStackIDs...
Hoo, good question. More support for target-specific handling of stack IDs
would be great. However in this case the concept is not purely wasm-specific;
I can imagine other targets that might have a similar treatment of locals (if
we had a .net target, or a jvm target, or so). The idea is that there is a
separate stack consisting of named locals that may not be addressable by
pointers to main memory. In earlier drafts of this patch the name was more
generic ("Object", then "Managed") but you know, our words in this area are
quite overloaded. So instead I went with something quite specific (WasmLocal)
to avoid the general question -- but I do think the concept is not specific,
even if it doesn't apply to any other target currently in tree. WDYT?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D101140/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D101140
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
