yvvan abandoned this revision.
yvvan added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D34873#841624, @rnk wrote:
> This shouldn't be necessary after https://reviews.llvm.org/rL310905.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D34873
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-co
rnk added a comment.
This shouldn't be necessary after https://reviews.llvm.org/rL310905.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D34873
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
rnk added a subscriber: gbiv.
rnk added a comment.
I looked at the blame, and I added this alignment thing in
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL289575 to deal with some PointerIntPair assertions.
Those probably started in @gbiv's https://reviews.llvm.org/rL270781, which
introduced a `PointerIntPair` f
martell added a comment.
@rnk isn't this related to https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78936
Assuming this is in fact a gcc bug this will most likely cause a regression
with the standalone clang mingw toolchains we are on the verge of having.
This is of course assuming clang does not ha
yvvan added a comment.
ping. Do you think this is ok now?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D34873
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
yvvan updated this revision to Diff 108878.
yvvan marked 2 inline comments as done.
yvvan added a comment.
Make safe solution without regression
https://reviews.llvm.org/D34873
Files:
lib/AST/ExprConstant.cpp
Index: lib/AST/ExprConstant.cpp
==
yvvan added a comment.
Ok, i will make safer solution...
https://reviews.llvm.org/D34873
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
t.p.northover added inline comments.
Comment at: lib/AST/ExprConstant.cpp:583
+uint64_t& GetArrayInitIndex() {
+return reinterpret_cast(ArrayInitIndex[0]);
+}
rnk wrote:
> Surely this will fault on SPARC or ARM or other ISAs that care about
> ali
rnk added inline comments.
Comment at: lib/AST/ExprConstant.cpp:583
+uint64_t& GetArrayInitIndex() {
+return reinterpret_cast(ArrayInitIndex[0]);
+}
Surely this will fault on SPARC or ARM or other ISAs that care about alignment?
https://reviews.
yvvan updated this revision to Diff 108620.
yvvan added a comment.
Provide a workaround without regression
https://reviews.llvm.org/D34873
Files:
lib/AST/ExprConstant.cpp
Index: lib/AST/ExprConstant.cpp
===
--- lib/AST/ExprCons
rnk requested changes to this revision.
rnk added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
This doesn't seem like an acceptable workaround, surely this regresses
functionality for arrays with more than UINT_MAX elements.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D34873
__
yvvan added a comment.
The same alignment in other places works fine. i don't know the source of that
issue. Should be somewhere in gcc(mingw) but it's not my focus.
So this is a workaround that we can make (probably only for mingw builds)
https://reviews.llvm.org/D34873
hans added a reviewer: rnk.
hans added a comment.
From the bug, this is related to Richard's "r289413 - Add two new AST nodes to
represent initialization of an array in terms of initialization of each array
element", which broke MSVC builds due to under-alignment, which Reid addressed
with "r28
yvvan created this revision.
With that patch applied my 32-bit libclang.dll built with mingw does not crash
anymore
unit tests are not affected by that change
https://reviews.llvm.org/D34873
Files:
lib/AST/ExprConstant.cpp
Index: lib/AST/ExprConstant.cpp
===
14 matches
Mail list logo