On Sep 26, 2012, at 9:18 PM, 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. This is all a matter of taste. I'll let Chris make the > decision.
I agree with this patch in principle: TargetData should be moved to VMCore. However, the class should also be renamed. -Chris _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
