Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "4bc3ba45".
2014 Oct 20
2
[LLVMdev] RFC: Are we ready to completely move away from the optionality of a DataLayout?
...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.
-eric
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141020/4bc3ba45/attachment.html>
2014 Oct 19
14
[LLVMdev] RFC: Are we ready to completely move away from the optionality of a DataLayout?
I've just wasted a day chasing my tail because of subtleties introduced to
handle the optionality of the DataLayout. I would like to never do this
again. =]
We now have this attached to the Module with just a flimsy faked-up pass to
keep APIs consistent. So, is there any problem with beginning down the path
of:
1) Synthesizing a "default" boring DataLayout for all modules that