[LLVMdev] RFC: Are we ready to completely move away from the optionality of a DataLayout?
hfinkel at anl.gov
Sun Oct 19 15:23:20 PDT 2014
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at gmail.com>
> To: "Sanjoy Das" <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com>
> Cc: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2014 5:11:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] RFC: Are we ready to completely move away from the optionality of a DataLayout?
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Sanjoy Das <
> sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com > wrote:
> I have a question:
> > 1) Synthesizing a "default" boring DataLayout for all modules that
> > don't
> > specify one.
> What is a default boring value for endianness?
> Little. Sorry, but LE won here.
> I mean, we could make the default big-endian just to test the less
> common scenario, but I think it would just result in bugs in
> people's test cases rather than teasing out actual bugs in their
No ;) -- little endian should be the default.
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
Assistant Computational Scientist
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory
More information about the llvm-dev