[cfe-commits] [llvm-commits] [Patch] Move TargetData from Target to Support/VMCore

[Chris Lattner]

Yes.  How about just llvm/VMCore/DataLayout.h?

-Chris

On Oct 2, 2012, at 8:55 AM, "Villmow, Micah" <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote:

> Chris,
> So if I renamed it to something like DataLayoutParser, that would be acceptable to move the functionality into core?
> 
> Micah
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Chris Lattner [mailto:clattner at apple.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 9:03 AM
>> To: Evan Cheng
>> Cc: Hal Finkel; Villmow, Micah; llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu LLVM; Nadav
>> Rotem; cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu cfe
>> Subject: Re: [cfe-commits] [llvm-commits] [Patch] Move TargetData from
>> Target to Support/VMCore
>> 
>> On Sep 26, 2012, at 9:18 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote:
>>> On Sep 26, 2012, at 11:07 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 16:16:22 -0700
>>>> Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Sorry, I understand why you are requesting this but I thinking
>>>>> moving TargetData to support is conceptually dirty.
>>>> 
>>>> Can you please explain this? I think that the opposite is true:
>>>> Having TargetData in Target is conceptually dirty. TargetData
>>>> represents 'target information that is available to frontends and
>>>> IR-level passes without linking to the target descriptions'.
>>> 
>>> Agreed.
>>> 
>>>> As a result, I feel
>>>> that TargetData does not belong with the target-description
>>>> infrastructure, and so it should be moved out of Target so that
>>>> everyone can use it.
>>> 
>>> I agree it should be moved out but at least it's target related.
>> Polluting Support / VMCore with it is just worse. They have nothing to
>> do with target data conceptually. This is all a matter of taste. I'll
>> let Chris make the decision.
>> 
>> I agree with this patch in principle: TargetData should be moved to
>> VMCore.  However, the class should also be renamed.
>> 
>> -Chris
> 
>