[LLVMdev] RFC: Are we ready to completely move away from the optionality of a DataLayout? (original) (raw)

Rafael Avila de Espindola rafael.espindola at gmail.com
Sun Oct 19 11:10:00 PDT 2014

I would love to see a mandatory data layout. Thanks for working on this!

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 19, 2014, at 04:22, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote:

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: 1) Synthesizing a "default" boring DataLayout for all modules that don't specify one. 2) Changing the APIs to make it clear that this can never be missing and is always available. 3) 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

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list