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

Chandler Carruth chandlerc at gmail.com
Sun Oct 19 15:18:22 PDT 2014

Just as a heads up, I'm hearing widespread support and no concerns with
this. I'll probably start poking it forward, although it's not likely to be
a top priority at any time. I'll at least try to update the documentation
where I can find it so that we stop fixing bugs with missing datalayout and
just delete that code path.

On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 1:22 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com>

> 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.
> If there isn't, I'm willing to do some of the leg work here.
> -Chandler
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141019/690d1460/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list