* The alignment check can be removed, and I'll do so tomorrow if someone doesn't beat me to it.
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 1:54 AM Eric Fiselier <e...@efcs.ca> wrote: > The alignment check can just be removed. > > On Mon., May 27, 2019, 7:57 p.m. Ulrich Weigand via Phabricator, < > revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote: > >> uweigand added a comment. >> >> Looks like this test is failing on SystemZ since it was added, making all >> our build bots red: >> >> >> /home/uweigand/sandbox/buildbot/clang-s390x-linux/llvm/tools/clang/test/CodeGenCXX/builtin_FUNCTION.cpp:9:11: >> error: CHECK: expected string not found in input >> // CHECK: @[[EMPTY_STR:.+]] = private unnamed_addr constant [1 x i8] >> zeroinitializer, align 1 >> ^ >> >> /home/uweigand/sandbox/buildbot/clang-s390x-linux/stage1/tools/clang/test/CodeGenCXX/Output/builtin_FUNCTION.cpp.tmp.ll:1:1: >> note: scanning from here >> ; ModuleID = >> '/home/uweigand/sandbox/buildbot/clang-s390x-linux/llvm/tools/clang/test/CodeGenCXX/builtin_FUNCTION.cpp' >> ^ >> >> /home/uweigand/sandbox/buildbot/clang-s390x-linux/stage1/tools/clang/test/CodeGenCXX/Output/builtin_FUNCTION.cpp.tmp.ll:8:1: >> note: possible intended match here >> @.str = private unnamed_addr constant [1 x i8] zeroinitializer, align 2 >> ^ >> >> The problem is that string constants are 2-aligned according to the >> SystemZ ABI (this is a bit different, but deliberate in order to allow >> computing their addresses with a LARL instruction). This makes all the >> "align 1" checks fail. >> >> Is this test deliberately verifying the alignment, or could this just be >> removed? >> >> >> Repository: >> rC Clang >> >> CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION >> https://reviews.llvm.org/D37035/new/ >> >> https://reviews.llvm.org/D37035 >> >> >> >>
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits