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

[Hal Finkel]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joerg Sonnenberger" <joerg at britannica.bec.de>
> To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu
> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 5:13:03 AM
> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] RFC: Are we ready to completely move away from the optionality of a DataLayout?
> 
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 03:52:12PM -0500, Hal Finkel wrote:
> > I think that, generally speaking, this does not make sense. You
> > could
> > imagine linking together two modules where one data layout was a
> > "subset" of the other (one is missing details of the vector types,
> > for
> > example, in a module that used no vector types), but even that
> > seems tenuous.
> 
> I think linking modules with different vector types makes perfect
> sense.
> Consider a larger program that includes optimised SSE2 vs AVX
> routines,
> switching between them at run time.

Yes, we certainly want to support that. But even in that case, we'd use the same DataLayout for both modules (just specify different target cpus for the functions in the different modules).


 -Hal

> 
> Joerg
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> 

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