Sorry, I understand why you are requesting this but I thinking moving 
TargetData to support is conceptually dirty. Nadav is going to propose a BOF at 
the DevMeeting to talk about designing an abstraction to expose target 
information to LLVM ir. Can we hold off this kind of change for now?

Losing the ability to verify isn't a strong enough argument for an immediate 
change. I don't follow the auto-upgrade argument. Can you elaborate?

Thanks,

Evan

On Sep 21, 2012, at 4:08 PM, "Villmow, Micah" <[email protected]> wrote:

> This time with the actual patch
>  
> From: Villmow, Micah 
> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 4:08 PM
> To: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: [Patch] Move TargetData from Target to Support/VMCore
>  
> I have attached a patch which moves TargetData from Target to Support/VMCore.
> The reason why I would like to have this change can be read about in more 
> detail in message [1][2], which in turn is required for [3].
>  
> In short, I need the capability of querying, if available, target specific 
> information in the bitcode during verifier and the auto-upgrade mechanism.
> Because TargetData is in the target directory, a circular dependency is 
> created when the verifier and auto-upgrade mechanism utilize the information.
>  
>  
> Please let me know what you think and if this approach isn't good, possible 
> alternate solutions,
> Micah
>  
>  
> [1] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-September/053277.html
> [2] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-September/053166.html
> [3] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-August/052639.html
> <move_target_data_to_support_vmcore.txt>_______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits

_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to