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

Chris Lattner clattner at apple.com
Mon Oct 20 19:51:35 PDT 2014

Hi Eric,

Can you elaborate on your goals and what problem you are trying to solve? As Chandler points out, DataLayout is part of module for a reason.

-Chris

On Oct 20, 2014, at 2:20 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote:

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at google.com> wrote:

Agreed. The DataLayout should move (back) to the TargetMachine and live there (I'm doing that part right now). I don't particularly want to put it on the module because of (admittedly pie in the sky) plans of being able to compile a module with two target machines at the same time. Wait, what? The DataLayout can't live in the target machine without upending the layering completely. Every part of the IR optimizer uses it... Ha. And yet currently some of them are dependent upon subtarget features. I'm separating them out, but making them "ARM" or "X86" or what have you seems to be the best route. -eric

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

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list