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

Eric Christopher echristo at gmail.com
Mon Oct 20 14:20:55 PDT 2014

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at google.com>
> wrote:
>> 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.
> Wait, what? The DataLayout can't live in the target machine without upending
> the layering completely. Every part of the IR optimizer uses it...

Ha. And yet currently some of them are dependent upon subtarget
features. I'm separating them out, but making them "ARM" or "X86" or
what have you seems to be the best route.


More information about the llvm-dev mailing list