efriedma added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/Address.h:67
return;
- // Currently the max supported alignment is much less than 1 << 63 and is
+ // Currently the max supported alignment is much less than 1 << 32 and is
// guaranteed to be a power of 2, so we can store the log of the alignment
----------------
ahatanak wrote:
> efriedma wrote:
> > ahatanak wrote:
> > > efriedma wrote:
> > > > This comment isn't right. The max alignment is, as far as I can tell,
> > > > 1<<32 exactly. (But there's something weird going on with very large
> > > > values... somehow `int a[1LL<<32] __attribute((aligned(1ULL<<32))) =
> > > > {};` ignores the alignment.)
> > > The following function generated by tablegen (and a few others directly
> > > or indirectly calling the function) returns a 32-bit int, but it should
> > > be returning a 64-bit int.
> > >
> > > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/clang/utils/TableGen/ClangAttrEmitter.cpp#L532
> > Filed https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/60752 so we don't lose
> > track of this.
> I just realized we can't reduce the number of bits used for alignment here as
> we need 6 bits for alignment of `1 << 32`.
>
> Should we allocate additional memory when `AlignLog` is either 31 or 32? If
> the 5-bit alignment is equal to `0b11111`, it would mean that there is an
> out-of-line storage large enough to hold the alignment and any other extra
> information that is needed. I think https://reviews.llvm.org/D117262#3267899
> proposes a similar idea.
How much does `sizeof(Address)` actually matter, anyway? If it's going to get
that nasty to implement the packing, I'm not sure it's worth the effort to
optimize.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D142584/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D142584
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
