rogfer01 added inline comments.
================
Comment at: include/clang/CodeGen/CGFunctionInfo.h:90
union {
- unsigned DirectOffset; // isDirect() || isExtend()
- unsigned IndirectAlign; // isIndirect()
- unsigned AllocaFieldIndex; // isInAlloca()
+ llvm::StructType *ExtendSeq; // isCoerceAndExpand()
+ unsigned DirectOffset; // isDirect() || isExtend()
----------------
rjmccall wrote:
> Hmm. I understand the need to use something uniqued here, but I think it
> would probably be more natural to at least use a `llvm::ConstantDataArray`
> (which could be null if there are no interesting bits) instead of encoding
> the information into the types of a struct type. That would also make it
> easy to generalize the elements to an arbitrary flags type.
>
> Also, on 64-bit targets this will increase the size of an `ABIArgInfo` to
> four pointers from three. That's fine to the extent that we work with
> independent `ABIArgInfo`s, but I'm getting a little annoyed at the storage
> overhead of the array of `ABIArgInfo`s in `CGFunctionInfo` given that, in the
> overwhelmingly common case, an `ABIArgInfo` is no more than a kind and maybe
> a few of these flags. Maybe there's some reasonable way to optimize the
> storage of an `ABIArgInfo` in a `CGFunctionInfo` so that we only need the
> extra storage in less-common cases? Like extracting out a base class that's
> the Kind+Flags and making the main array be an array of those + an optional
> index into a second trailing array of full `ABIArgInfo`s.
>
> I might be overthinking this, though.
Oh, of course, using a value rather than a type is more sensible. I will change
this.
The idea of having a lighter `ABIArgInfo` and an ancillary extra array for it
seems sensible. I guess it may depend on how early/late we know the precise
kind of `ABIArgInfo` we need to represent. I haven't looked at this yet, I'll
investigate.
================
Comment at: include/clang/CodeGen/CGFunctionInfo.h:475
+static_assert(std::is_trivially_copyable<ABIArgInfo>::value,
+ "ABIArgInfo must be trivially copyable as it is embedded as trailing "
----------------
rogfer01 wrote:
> I think this is the right trait here. I spent too much time debugging this :)
But today I realised that GCC 4.9 does not implement this so it will have to go
away :(
https://reviews.llvm.org/D48589
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
