yaxunl added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20979#453632, @Anastasia wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20979#452616, @yaxunl wrote: > > > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20979#452463, @Anastasia wrote: > > > > > Looking good generally, I am just not sure about mixing two different > > > representations. > > > > > > If we choose only one form of representation, would you suggest to use > > function metadata or function attribute? > > > I am still not sure if this is the intended use of target-dependent > attributes to be honest. So I would prefer metadata representation. > > Also if we use metadata could we avoid parsing values from strings > potentially in contrast to attributes that represent all values as strings? OK due to the controversy of target-dependent function attributes, let's concur to use function metadata for all the kernel attributes, and do not convert everything to string in the metadata. > Related to your earlier comments about inflexibility of metadata, would it be > possible to extend MDNode to be able to insert new operands? I will see how difficult is that. http://reviews.llvm.org/D20979 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
