From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Chris Li" Subject: Re: Adding type information to instructions Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:08:08 -0700 Message-ID: <70318cbf0807071308i5ce33e92rf7b033d5709da2a2@mail.gmail.com> References: <486EB59C.100@cowlark.com> <1215452561.3003.21.camel@josh-work.beaverton.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ti-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.142.189]:7419 "EHLO ti-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754460AbYGGUIL (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Jul 2008 16:08:11 -0400 Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id b6so599279tic.23 for ; Mon, 07 Jul 2008 13:08:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1215452561.3003.21.camel@josh-work.beaverton.ibm.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org To: Josh Triplett Cc: David Given , linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 10:42 AM, Josh Triplett wrote: > I can't think of any fundamental reason not to do this, other than the > standard reason of data structure size. There is other ways to avoid the size blow up. At the linearized byte code level, the back end only need to know it is one of the stander C type . So we have an array of stander ctype C type similar to ctype_declaration[]. We just need to replace the size member with the array index in the instruction struct.. Chris