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

Hal Finkel hfinkel at anl.gov
Sun Oct 19 12:26:04 PDT 2014

----- Original Message -----

From: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at gmail.com> To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>, nicholas at mxc.ca, "Rafael Ávila de Espíndola" <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2014 3:22:26 AM Subject: [LLVMdev] RFC: Are we ready to completely move away from the optionality of a DataLayout?

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. =]

I agree; while I've heard of use cases, I don't personally feel that, at this stage, it is worth the maintenance burden. Realistically, we just don't have a good way to test the no-data-layout code paths (the great majority of our testing coverage comes from frontends that always add DataLayout). I also vote for making it mandatory.

-Hal

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

LLVM Developers mailing list LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

-- Hal Finkel Assistant Computational Scientist Leadership Computing Facility Argonne National Laboratory

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list