echristo added a comment.
In D17183#2656771 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D17183#2656771>, @jyknight wrote:
> In general, I think it's extremely unfortunate that Clang and LLVM have
> different copies of the same information. It's a problem for way more than
> just this one situation. So, I really don't like choice 1 -- I think it's
> moving in the wrong direction.
>
> The recent thread about compiler-rt libcalls vs size of "int" is another
> example of this sort of issue of duplicated info across the llvm/clang
> boundary being troublesome. Other times, the information in question is
> buried in the Target implementation in LLVM, and Clang doesn't depend upon
> targets being compiled in...usually, so it can't access it from there. E.g.
> the fact that Clang even has to come up with a DataLayout string on its own
> is an example of this problem.
>
> So, I like option 2. I think a lot more of the information in TargetInfo
> ought to be shared with LLVM. I note that ARM already pushed a bunch of
> shared stuff into LLVM to reduce duplication, which is great. But, it had to
> put it into a rather odd place
> (`llvm/include/llvm/Support/{ARMTargetParser.h,ARMAttributeParser.h,...`),
> because of the layering and optionality concerns. That part is not so great
> -- putting all this target-specific info into "Support" doesn't feel like the
> best fit. There should be some sort of Target-specific location for this sort
> of stuff to live which Clang can depend on.
FWIW I agree here.
Repository:
rL LLVM
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D17183/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D17183
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
