reames added a comment. I just posted an alternate review (https://reviews.llvm.org/D71238) which attempts to carve out a minimum reviewable piece of complexity. The hope is that we can review that one quickly (as there are fewer interacting concerns), and then rebase this one (possibly splitting further).
I had previously suggested in review comments that we should reuse the infrastructure from .bundle_align_mode. When I sat down to actually implement that, I discovered that the code for that has a bunch of interacting assumptions about when fragments are constructed and used vs alignment boundaries. I got a version of this working, but the complexity was worrisome. I now suggest that we should take the rough approach sketched here (a separate fragment before the one being aligned), delete the essentially unused bundle mode code, and revisit a unified representation if needed for memory density at a later time. (i.e. my previous suggestion wasn't a good one) CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D70157/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D70157 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
