[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 15:11:58 PDT 2014
- Previous message: [LLVMdev] RFC: Are we ready to completely move away from the optionality of a DataLayout?
- Next message: [LLVMdev] RFC: Are we ready to completely move away from the optionality of a DataLayout?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote:
I have a question:
> 1) Synthesizing a "default" boring DataLayout for all modules that don't > specify one. What is a default boring value for endianness?
Little. Sorry, but LE won here.
I mean, we could make the default big-endian just to test the less common scenario, but I think it would just result in bugs in people's test cases rather than teasing out actual bugs in their code. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141019/4d0eadf1/attachment.html>
- Previous message: [LLVMdev] RFC: Are we ready to completely move away from the optionality of a DataLayout?
- Next message: [LLVMdev] RFC: Are we ready to completely move away from the optionality of a DataLayout?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]