jrtc27 added a comment. In D101140#2786844 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D101140#2786844>, @wingo wrote:
> 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? Well, except all the logic for it is in the backend, only the parser and the definition are in target-independent code, so even if another backend were to reuse it it would have its own completely separate logic for it, and thus there's no benefit to reusing a shared name for the thing over each target defining its own? Or would some of the code in the wasm backend be refactored out into CodeGen? 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
