[PATCH] D109362: [SystemZ][z/OS] Add GOFF Support to the DataLayout

[Anirudh Prasad via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

anirudhp added a comment.

In D109362#3001294 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D109362#3001294>, @uweigand wrote:

> In D109362#3000284 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D109362#3000284>, @anirudhp wrote:
>
>> In D109362#2999688 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D109362#2999688>, @uweigand wrote:
>>
>>> Looking at the common code parts, it seems the behavior of MM_GOFF is actually identical to MM_ELF.   Is this correct?   If so, do we really need a different format type here?
>>
>> At a future point, we will be changing the local and global prefixes. At that point we would still need a separate `MM_GOFF` field. I feel it would be a bit better to enforce it from now itself.
>
> I see.  Is there a reason why we cannot use the "correct" prefixes to begin with?

Nope. I'll update the patch.

In D109362#3001294 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D109362#3001294>, @uweigand wrote:

> In D109362#3000284 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D109362#3000284>, @anirudhp wrote:
>
>> In D109362#2999688 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D109362#2999688>, @uweigand wrote:
>>
>>> Looking at the common code parts, it seems the behavior of MM_GOFF is actually identical to MM_ELF.   Is this correct?   If so, do we really need a different format type here?
>>
>> At a future point, we will be changing the local and global prefixes. At that point we would still need a separate `MM_GOFF` field. I feel it would be a bit better to enforce it from now itself.
>
> I see.  Is there a reason why we cannot use the "correct" prefixes to begin with?

Nope. I've added it. There should also be a change to the MCAsmInfo fields (`PrivateGlobalPrefix` and `PrivateLabelPrefix`). These will be added in when the MCAsmInfo interfaces for z/OS are put up.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D109362/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D109362