bcarneal at gmail.com
Sun Aug 2 06:36:44 UTC 2020
On Sunday, 2 August 2020 at 04:08:00 UTC, Bruce Carneal wrote:
> Factoring out naming from the "anonymous" structural aspects of
> types seems like a good way to go. If people want to match on
> type structure for some reason, great. If they want to create
> ginormous names, well, OK.
Did some background reading on LLVM. The LLVM type system
provides both named and unnamed literal/structural forms.
Type equality checks within LLVM, both named and otherwise,
appear to be non-trivial in general (saw a 2020 paper
highlighting the screw-ups and workarounds).
Earlier LLVM work aimed to speed things up there by reducing the
cost of "uniqueing" mutable type representations (turning
deep/expensive equality checks in to pointer comparisons IIUC).
As a guess, DMD already does this type of thing, separating
deeper commonalities from shallower differences (names,
attributes, and the like).
Looks like many of LLVM's more recent problems stem from C/C++
related issues. Again not a problem for DMD.
Still, even concrete/lowered type representation is much less a
"solved" problem than I imagined if LLVM is anything to go by.
The improvements suggested by Manu and Stefan are looking pretty
More information about the Digitalmars-d