[LLVMdev] RFC: Are we ready to completely move away from the optionality of a DataLayout? (original) (raw)
Chandler Carruth chandlerc at gmail.com
Sun Oct 19 01:22:26 PDT 2014
- Previous message: [LLVMdev] Query regarding backend of Clang
- Next message: [LLVMdev] RFC: Are we ready to completely move away from the optionality of a DataLayout?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
I've just wasted a day chasing my tail because of subtleties introduced to handle the optionality of the DataLayout. I would like to never do this again. =]
We now have this attached to the Module with just a flimsy faked-up pass to keep APIs consistent. So, is there any problem with beginning down the path of:
- Synthesizing a "default" boring DataLayout for all modules that don't specify one.
- Changing the APIs to make it clear that this can never be missing and is always available.
- Start ripping out all of the complexity in the compiler dealing with this.
If there isn't, I'm willing to do some of the leg work here. -Chandler -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141019/2aa1b3be/attachment.html>
- Previous message: [LLVMdev] Query regarding backend of Clang
- Next message: [LLVMdev] RFC: Are we ready to completely move away from the optionality of a DataLayout?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]