On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 21:18:24 -0700 Evan Cheng <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Sep 26, 2012, at 11:07 AM, Hal Finkel <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 16:16:22 -0700 > > Evan Cheng <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Sorry, I understand why you are requesting this but I thinking > >> moving TargetData to support is conceptually dirty. > > > > Can you please explain this? I think that the opposite is true: > > Having TargetData in Target is conceptually dirty. TargetData > > represents 'target information that is available to frontends and > > IR-level passes without linking to the target descriptions'. > > Agreed. > > > As a result, I feel > > that TargetData does not belong with the target-description > > infrastructure, and so it should be moved out of Target so that > > everyone can use it. > > I agree it should be moved out but at least it's target related. > Polluting Support / VMCore with it is just worse. They have nothing > to do with target data conceptually. Good point. On the other hand, TargetData is specified along with the core IR language reference. Perhaps the problem really is that auto-upgrade support is in VMCore, and auto-upgrade is full of logic that deals with target-specific intrinsics (and, maybe soon, pointer size information). Maybe making a libTargetData would be better? -Hal > This is all a matter of taste. > I'll let Chris make the decision. > > Evan > > > > >> Nadav is going to > >> propose a BOF at the DevMeeting to talk about designing an > >> abstraction to expose target information to LLVM ir. > > > > Great! > > > > Thanks again, > > Hal > > > >> 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 > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Hal Finkel > > Postdoctoral Appointee > > Leadership Computing Facility > > Argonne National Laboratory -- Hal Finkel Postdoctoral Appointee Leadership Computing Facility Argonne National Laboratory _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
