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

Chandler Carruth chandlerc at gmail.com
Sun Oct 19 01:22:26 PDT 2014

I've just wasted a day chasing my tail because of subtleties introduced to
handle the optionality of the DataLayout. I would like to never do this
again. =]

We now have this attached to the Module with just a flimsy faked-up pass to
keep APIs consistent. So, is there any problem with beginning down the path

1) Synthesizing a "default" boring DataLayout for all modules that don't
specify one.
2) Changing the APIs to make it clear that this can never be missing and is
always available.
3) Start ripping out all of the complexity in the compiler dealing with

If there isn't, I'm willing to do some of the leg work here.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141019/2aa1b3be/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list