Chris, So if I renamed it to something like DataLayoutParser, that would be acceptable to move the functionality into core?
Micah > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Lattner [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 9:03 AM > To: Evan Cheng > Cc: Hal Finkel; Villmow, Micah; [email protected] LLVM; Nadav > Rotem; [email protected] cfe > Subject: Re: [cfe-commits] [llvm-commits] [Patch] Move TargetData from > Target to Support/VMCore > > 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
