Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "4d0eadf1".
2014 Oct 19
2
[LLVMdev] RFC: Are we ready to completely move away from the optionality of a DataLayout?
...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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141019/4d0eadf1/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