[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 15:53:14 PDT 2014

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

From: "Sanjoy Das" <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> Cc: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at gmail.com>, "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2014 5:48:01 PM Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] RFC: Are we ready to completely move away from the optionality of a DataLayout?

>> 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. > > No ;) -- little endian should be the default. Makes sense. I was curious because the current DataLayout analysis pass chooses big endian by default, and I've had at least one hard-to-diagnose miscompile because of that. :)

Awesome ;) -- Yea, we'll likely want to change that.

-Hal

-- Sanjoy

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

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list