erichkeane marked an inline comment as done. erichkeane added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/TargetInfo.cpp:4938 + if (EIT->getNumBits() > 128) + return getNaturalAlignIndirect(Ty, /*ByVal=*/true); + ---------------- rjmccall wrote: > rjmccall wrote: > > erichkeane wrote: > > > rjmccall wrote: > > > > Does this need to consider the aggregate-as-array logic below? > > > I'm not sure what you mean by this? Are you suggesting I could/should > > > pass this as an array instead of indirectly? > > My interpretation is that in general you're lowering large a `_ExtInt` like > > a struct with a bunch of integer members in it. My understanding is that, > > for this target, that would make it a homogeneous aggregate eligible for > > the special treatment given to certain aggregate types below. I don't know > > what that corresponds to at the code-emission level. > This seems to work, although it's unfortunate that it duplicates some of the > existing behavior. Do we also need to modify `isHomogeneousAggregate` to > consider `ExtInts`? And if we do, does that avoid any of the duplicate logic > here? I think doing that would result in altering a number of other targets as well (thats not a PPC specific function I think?). While there IS a little duplication, it is just the 5 lines that calculates the array and coerces it. Otherwise the logic is just slightly different enough I don't think it would save much. That said, perhaps there is value in extracting those 5 lines or so into a function. I'll give that a shot. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D79118/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D79118 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
