rnk added a comment. In D75903#1963382 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D75903#1963382>, @pratlucas wrote:
> In regards to the compatibility with other compilers, I'm not sure that > following what seems to be an uncompliant behavior would be the best way to > proceed. @rnk and @ostannard, what would be your take on this? I don't have any familiarity with the prevailing practices for ARM ABI compatibility, so I couldn't say. It might be worth checking in with stakeholders from the other compilers, i.e. file bugs against both compilers and ask for an opinion. ================ Comment at: llvm/docs/LangRef.rst:1220 +``alignstack(<n>)`` + This indicates the alignment that should be considered by the backend when + assigning this parameter to a stack slot during calling convention ---------------- This seems like you are introducing a new meaning to `alignstack`, which according to the comments, only affects function SP alignment, not parameter alignment. I'm assuming the reason you can't use the regular `align` attribute is that it is overloaded to mean two things: the alignment of the pointer when applied to a pointer, and the alignment of the argument memory when that pointer argument is marked `byval`. If you want to resolve this ambiguity, it seems like something that should be discussed on llvm-dev with a wider audience. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D75903/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D75903 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits