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

Chris Lattner clattner at apple.com
Mon Oct 20 09:51:58 PDT 2014

On Oct 19, 2014, at 1:22 AM, 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.

+1 from me.  The theoretical blue-sky reasons for working with a module that has no datalayout never happened and almost certainly never will.


More information about the llvm-dev mailing list