tmatheson added a comment.
Looks sensible but I don't fully understand the context of the change. Please
could you explain more what is wrong with the current behaviour, and which
parts of the AAPCS you are referring to.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/TargetInfo.cpp:5811
+ // For alignment adjusted HFAs, cap the argument alignment to 16, otherwise
+ // set it to 8 according to the AAPCS64 document.
unsigned Align =
----------------
Does the similar code added in D100853 need updated too?
================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/TargetInfo.cpp:5814
getContext().getTypeUnadjustedAlignInChars(Ty).getQuantity();
- unsigned BaseAlign = getContext().getTypeAlignInChars(Base).getQuantity();
- Align = (Align > BaseAlign && Align >= 16) ? 16 : 0;
+ Align = (Align >= 16) ? 16 : 8;
return ABIArgInfo::getDirect(
----------------
Does this code definitely only apply when the ABI is AAPCS64, or should there
be a check for that somewhere here? I can't tell whether the `if` on line 5806
is sufficient.
================
Comment at: clang/test/CodeGen/aarch64-ABI-align-packed.cpp:1
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple aarch64-arm-none-eabi \
+// RUN: -target-feature +v8a \
----------------
Does this need the `arm` vendor in the triple?
================
Comment at: clang/test/CodeGen/aarch64-ABI-align-packed.cpp:1
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple aarch64-arm-none-eabi \
+// RUN: -target-feature +v8a \
----------------
tmatheson wrote:
> Does this need the `arm` vendor in the triple?
Please add a brief comment explaining what this is testing.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D146242/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D146242
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
