uweigand added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D11034#201452, @rjmccall wrote:
> Good catch! > > The better fix would be to ignore the bitfield's abstract storage alignment > and instead use the base l-value's alignment, adjusted with alignmentAtOffset > to the offset of the bitfield's storage. This ensures we get the right > alignment when the base l-value is *over*-aligned: in a packed struct, > bitfield storage at offset 0 will have alignment 1, but if the packed struct > itself is known to have alignment 4 (e.g., if it is embedded in an unpacked > struct), then we still know that the storage has alignment > 4.alignmentAtOffset(0) == 4. Good point. Unfortunately, at the point the access is generated, there doesn't appear to be an easy way to retrieve the offset of the bitfield's storage relative to the surrounding struct. This value is present as "StartOffset" in CGRecordLowering::setBitFieldInfo, but is not actually stored in the CGBitFieldInfo struct. Maybe instead of the StorageAlignment field, the CGBitFieldInfo struct should instead have a StorageOffset field? > Also, please use CreateAlignedStore and CreateAlignedLoad. OK, done. http://reviews.llvm.org/D11034 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
