rsmith added a comment.
This seems to be missing a CodeGen test for what IR we generate on an
overly-large alignment. (The warning says the alignment is ignored, but I don't
see where you're actually doing anything different in that case when generating
IR.)
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td:2857-2859
+ : Warning<"requested alignment must be %0 bytes or smaller; assumption "
+ "ignored">,
+ InGroup<DiagGroup<"builtin-assume-aligned-alignment">>;
----------------
Ignoring the assumption in this case seems unnecessarily user-hostile (and
would require hard-coding an arbitrary LLVM limit in the source code to work
around). Couldn't we just assume the highest alignment that we do support
instead?
================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CGStmtOpenMP.cpp:1522
for (const auto *Clause : D.getClausesOfKind<OMPAlignedClause>()) {
- unsigned ClauseAlignment = 0;
+ size_t ClauseAlignment = 0;
if (const Expr *AlignmentExpr = Clause->getAlignment()) {
----------------
It's not appropriate to assume that `size_t` is any bigger than `unsigned` or
generally that it's meaningful on the target. If you want 64 bits here, use
`uint64_t`, but the right choice is probably `llvm::APInt`.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaChecking.cpp:6067-6070
+ // Alignment calculations can wrap around if it's greater than 2**28.
+ unsigned MaximumAlignment =
+ Context.getTargetInfo().getTriple().isOSBinFormatCOFF() ? 8192
+ : 268435456;
----------------
Why is there a different limit depending on bin format? We can support this at
the IR level regardless, can't we? (I don't see how the binary format is
relevant.)
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D68824/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D68824
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
