jroelofs added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D15539#312336, @jroelofs wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D15539#312332, @bcraig wrote: > > > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D15539#312319, @jroelofs wrote: > > > > > What does having them be `long double`s give over just multiplying the > > > counts by 16 (or however big it is on your platform)? Alignment? > > > > > > Seems like it'd be better to start with a prime that's ~16x larger, say > > > 211, than to have that factor of 16 floating around everywhere. > > > > > > Alignment is the main answer. I'd use max_align_t directly, except that it > > got added in C++11, and this test should be able to run in C++98 and C++03. > > Using a large type instead of a char also makes it easier to avoid making > > two padding values that look different, but aren't actually all that > > different due to internal padding. Just starting at a high prime wouldn't > > fix this, as then I have to ensure that consecutive values are separated by > > at least sizeof(void *). > > > What platform are you on where sizeof(void*) is anywhere near 13 bytes? Ohh, nevermind... now I see what you're saying. http://reviews.llvm.org/D15539 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
