erichkeane added a comment. In D124998#3494442 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D124998#3494442>, @efriedma wrote:
> In D124998#3494426 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D124998#3494426>, @erichkeane > wrote: > >> In D124998#3494424 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D124998#3494424>, @efriedma >> wrote: >> >>> If you're really concerned about the size of FunctionProtoType increasing, >>> can we just shove the infrequently used calling convention bits into >>> TrailingObjects? >> >> I don't believe so. These are parts of the bitfield and are intrinsic to >> the type. > > I don't follow. Everything stored in FunctionProtoType, including information > stored in TrailingObjects, is "intrinsic to the type". It's just stored > differently. (FunctionTypeExtraBitfields already exists, even...) Ah, I see what you mean. I misread and thought you meant on the FunctionDecl itself, so mea culpa. I was unaware of `FunctionTypeExtraBitfields`! We perhaps should consider what of the `ExtInfo` we can move over to the `FunctionTypeExtraBitfields`. In that list, there are MAYBE 5 bits of the 13 that are used with any level of commonness (though I have no idea what CmseNSCall means). If most of those moved, I'd be pretty ok with having even EXTRA bits added for calling convention (though, if we go over 32, we probably need to have a discussion as to whether they are valuable). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D124998/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D124998 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
