Yes. How about just llvm/VMCore/DataLayout.h? -Chris
On Oct 2, 2012, at 8:55 AM, "Villmow, Micah" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
