[LLVMdev] RFC: Are we ready to completely move away from the optionality of a DataLayout?
David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk
Sun Oct 19 04:35:54 PDT 2014
On 19 Oct 2014, at 09:22, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 of:
> 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 this.
I've also recently had to chase down test case failures caused by assuming that it was safe to dereference the DataLayout, so a hearty 'yes please!' from me!
More information about the llvm-dev