[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 21:11:09 PDT 2014

On Oct 20, 2014, at 8:22 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 7:51 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:

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. Which is an interesting point - it's not really. (This was also going to be part of my talk next week, but since it's been brought up...) So the storage for DataLayout right now is on a per-subtarget basis. I.e. if you don't construct one in the module the backend will make one up based on information in the subtarget (everything from

I think this is what Chandler is proposing to fix: every module will have a DataLayout string.

-Chris

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list