[cfe-commits] [llvm-commits] [Patch] Move TargetData from Target to Support/VMCore

Villmow, Micah Micah.Villmow at amd.com
Tue Oct 2 08:55:04 PDT 2012


Chris,
 So if I renamed it to something like DataLayoutParser, that would be acceptable to move the functionality into core?

Micah

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Lattner [mailto:clattner at apple.com]
> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 9:03 AM
> To: Evan Cheng
> Cc: Hal Finkel; Villmow, Micah; llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu LLVM; Nadav
> Rotem; cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu cfe
> Subject: Re: [cfe-commits] [llvm-commits] [Patch] Move TargetData from
> Target to Support/VMCore
> 
> On Sep 26, 2012, at 9:18 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 26, 2012, at 11:07 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 16:16:22 -0700
> >> Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Sorry, I understand why you are requesting this but I thinking
> >>> moving TargetData to support is conceptually dirty.
> >>
> >> Can you please explain this? I think that the opposite is true:
> >> Having TargetData in Target is conceptually dirty. TargetData
> >> represents 'target information that is available to frontends and
> >> IR-level passes without linking to the target descriptions'.
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> >> As a result, I feel
> >> that TargetData does not belong with the target-description
> >> infrastructure, and so it should be moved out of Target so that
> >> everyone can use it.
> >
> > I agree it should be moved out but at least it's target related.
> Polluting Support / VMCore with it is just worse. They have nothing to
> do with target data conceptually. This is all a matter of taste. I'll
> let Chris make the decision.
> 
> I agree with this patch in principle: TargetData should be moved to
> VMCore.  However, the class should also be renamed.
> 
> -Chris






More information about the cfe-commits mailing list