On Jul 19, 2007, at 8:53 PM, Reid Spencer wrote: > On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 20:32 -0700, Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Jul 19, 2007, at 4:13 PM, Reid Spencer wrote: >> >>> Author: reid >>> Date: Thu Jul 19 18:13:04 2007 >>> New Revision: 40069 >>> >>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=40069&view=rev >>> Log: >>> For PR1553: >>> Change the keywords for the zext and sext parameter attributes to be >>> zeroext and signext so they don't conflict with the keywords for the >>> instructions of the same name. This gets around the ambiguity. >> >> Thanks Reid! >> >> Shouldn't the .ll parser autoupgrade llvm 2.0 .ll files? > > There isn't a good way to do it and still fix PR1553. That is, I'd > have > to reinstate the zext and sext keywords as parameter attributes so > that > the ambiguity between a function level zext/sext and a sext/zext > instruction would remain.
It isn't acceptable to break backwards compatibility with old files. Can we just do a hack where we handle the common case by looking at the line that the token comes from? For example: call foo() zext would be treated different than: call foo() zext because the zext is not on the same line. This seems to be a good solution, thoughts? -Chris _______________________________________________ llvm-commits mailing list llvm-commits@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
