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

Chris Lattner clattner at apple.com
Mon Oct 20 21:11:09 PDT 2014

On Oct 20, 2014, at 8:22 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 7:51 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:
>> Hi Eric,
>> Can you elaborate on your goals and what problem you are trying to solve?  As Chandler points out, DataLayout is part of module for a reason.
> Which is an interesting point - it's not really. (This was also going
> to be part of my talk next week, but since it's been brought up...)
> So the storage for DataLayout right now is on a per-subtarget basis.
> I.e. if you don't construct one in the module the backend will make
> one up based on information in the subtarget (everything from

I think this is what Chandler is proposing to fix: every module will have a DataLayout string.


More information about the llvm-dev mailing list