aaron.ballman added a comment. In D118804#3304337 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D118804#3304337>, @urnathan wrote:
> In D118804#3304280 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D118804#3304280>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > >> In D118804#3304261 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D118804#3304261>, @urnathan >> wrote: >> >>> While C2X has blessed such smaller alignments, the x86_64 ABI (in >>> particular), has not. However, using that ABI to justify 'It. Is. 16. >>> Bytes.', is really an exercise in reality denial at this point. just >>> thought I'd make it clear we have conflicting standards and practicality to >>> attend to. >> >> Do we want me to report back to WG14 with information that N2293 might not >> suitable for adoption into C2x? > > I think N2293 is fine for C2x. It is blessing an implementation of lower > alignment allocations. Putting the programmer on notice that they can no > longer assume some things. Okay, that's good to know, thank you! If the consensus changes and we want me to take feedback to WG14, please let me know. > As a compiler I think we need to deal with the reality that there are non-ABI > conforming [system-dependent] allocators out there, and not simply say 'But > the ABI says ...' > > There is already at least one thing the ABI says that is not valid on some > systems [sret return behaviour and Swift], for equally good reasons. The > compiler deals with that. > > FWIW, although gcc's code generation has a similar bug, its C++ library is > already cognizant of lower-alignment allocators -- I convinced Mr Wakely a > few years ago :) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D118804/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D118804 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
