chill added inline comments.
================ Comment at: llvm/docs/LangRef.rst:1220 +``alignstack(<n>)`` + This indicates the alignment that should be considered by the backend when + assigning this parameter to a stack slot during calling convention ---------------- rnk wrote: > This seems like you are introducing a new meaning to `alignstack`, which > according to the comments, only affects function SP alignment, not parameter > alignment. > > I'm assuming the reason you can't use the regular `align` attribute is that > it is overloaded to mean two things: the alignment of the pointer when > applied to a pointer, and the alignment of the argument memory when that > pointer argument is marked `byval`. If you want to resolve this ambiguity, it > seems like something that should be discussed on llvm-dev with a wider > audience. Sorry, I couldn't quite get it, do you suggest we should be using the `align` attribute instead of `alignstack`, if there are no (major) objections on the llvm-dev list? It certainly makes sense to me to use `align` as it already pertains to individual argument alignment (even though it's for pointers only now). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D75903/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D75903 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
