lxfind added a comment. > Sorry for the confusion. I think either overaligned or under-aligned could be > used here to describe the problem: either "Handle overaligned frame" or "Fix > under-aligned frame". Since c++ spec defines the former but not the later > (https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/object#Alignment), my first > intuition was to use the term "overalign". Under-aligned is the undesired > outcome that should be fixed (probably too late to handle I assume). Also the > overaligned is a static property whereas 'under-aligned" is a runtime > property. From the compiler's perspective, I think overaligned should be > preferred. With that said, I don't feel strongly about this. I could switch > to use "overaligned" if that feels more intuitive.
"Handle" is probably not the right word to be used here. What follows "handle" is typically a legit situation that already occurred but not current handled properly. Here "overaligned frame" doesn't already occur. From what I understand, you really just want to support promise object alignment. So why not just say that directly? To add on that, I do think you need to describe the problem in more detail in the description. It's indeed still confusing. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D100739/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D100739 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
