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

JF Bastien jfb at google.com
Mon Oct 20 09:21:11 PDT 2014

> > I'm biased towards making DataLayout mandatory but it does break
> legitimate use cases. Target-independent bitcode is not in the best shape
> but this change would kill it off entirely, so we better make sure the
> maintenance is causing enough pain to rectify the change.
> Target-independent bitcode exists in the form of things like SPIR and
> PNaCl.  These all have a DataLayout.  The IR already implicitly depends on
> some of these things (e.g. pointer size), making it explicit doesn't break
> things.


+1 on Chandler's proposal from PNaCl's perspective.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141020/85ebf726/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list