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

[Chris Lattner]

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.

-Chris

> On Oct 20, 2014, at 2:20 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at google.com>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Agreed. The DataLayout should move (back) to the TargetMachine and live
>>> there (I'm doing that part right now). I don't particularly want to put it
>>> on the module because of (admittedly pie in the sky) plans of being able to
>>> compile a module with two target machines at the same time.
>> 
>> 
>> Wait, what? The DataLayout can't live in the target machine without upending
>> the layering completely. Every part of the IR optimizer uses it...
> 
> Ha. And yet currently some of them are dependent upon subtarget
> features. I'm separating them out, but making them "ARM" or "X86" or
> what have you seems to be the best route.
> 
> -eric
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev