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

[Hal Finkel]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sanjoy Das" <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com>
> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>
> Cc: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at gmail.com>, "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2014 5:48:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] RFC: Are we ready to completely move away from the optionality of a DataLayout?
> 
> >> What is a default boring value for endianness?
> >> Little. Sorry, but LE won here.
> >>
> >>
> >> I mean, we could make the default big-endian just to test the less
> >> common scenario, but I think it would just result in bugs in
> >> people's test cases rather than teasing out actual bugs in their
> >> code.
> >
> > No ;) -- little endian should be the default.
> 
> Makes sense.  I was curious because the current DataLayout analysis
> pass chooses big endian by default, and I've had at least one
> hard-to-diagnose miscompile because of that. :)

Awesome ;) -- Yea, we'll likely want to change that.

 -Hal

> 
> -- Sanjoy
> 

-- 
Hal Finkel
Assistant Computational Scientist
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory