Replying to [comment:24 bgamari]:
I hope that the LLVM folks would reject outright any proposal to change the semantics of an already released feature in a non-compatible way.
An already released feature which is likely to have yet to be used in
#4213: LLVM: Add support for TNTC to LLVM compiler suite -------------------------------------+------------------------------------ Reporter: dterei | Owner: dterei Type: feature request | Status: new Priority: low | Milestone: 7.6.2 Component: Compiler (LLVM) | Version: 6.13 Resolution: | Keywords: Operating System: Unknown/Multiple | Architecture: Unknown/Multiple Type of failure: None/Unknown | Difficulty: Unknown Test Case: | Blocked By: 9142 Blocking: | Related Tickets: -------------------------------------+------------------------------------ Comment (by bgamari): Replying to [comment:30 altaic]: the wild.
It seems like there's a chance that the revision that you suggest might happen. In the [http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2014-May/073260.html words] of LLVM-er Reid Kleckner,
I worry that symbol_offset combined with prefix are too low-level. What if we split this up into something like prefix data "prologue" data? Prefix data would be an arbitrary LLVM constant, and prologue data is a byte sequence of native executable code.
-- Ticket URL: http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/4213#comment:34 GHC http://www.haskell.org/ghc/ The Glasgow Haskell Compiler