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

Eric Christopher echristo at google.com
Mon Oct 20 13:18:50 PDT 2014

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:

> 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.
Agreed. The DataLayout should move (back) to the TargetMachine and live
there (I'm doing that part right now). I don't particularly want to put it
on the module because of (admittedly pie in the sky) plans of being able to
compile a module with two target machines at the same time.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141020/4bc3ba45/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list