ychen added a comment. In D100739#2712268 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D100739#2712268>, @lxfind wrote:
>> Sorry for the confusion. I think either overaligned or under-aligned could >> be used here to describe the problem: either "Handle overaligned frame" or >> "Fix under-aligned frame". Since c++ spec defines the former but not the >> later (https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/object#Alignment), my >> first intuition was to use the term "overalign". Under-aligned is the >> undesired outcome that should be fixed (probably too late to handle I >> assume). Also the overaligned is a static property whereas 'under-aligned" >> is a runtime property. From the compiler's perspective, I think overaligned >> should be preferred. With that said, I don't feel strongly about this. I >> could switch to use "overaligned" if that feels more intuitive. > > Here "overaligned frame" doesn't already occur. It does occur. `FrameAlign > Shape.getSwitchCoroId()->getAlignment())` this check reflects the definition of C++ spec's definition of overalign. > From what I understand, you really just want to support promise object > alignment. So why not just say that directly? This patch does not deal with promise in any specific way. It treats promise just like any other frame members. > To add on that, I do think you need to describe the problem in more detail in > the description. It's indeed still confusing. Yep, will do that. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D100739/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D100739 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
