hvdijk added a comment. @JohnReagan That is a valid concern, and I hope it reassures you that if things were working before, I would never be on board with this change. For example, it would generally be better if long double were 8-byte-aligned, but the x86 32-bit ABI specifies that it is 4-byte-aligned, and that is set in stone. I would be against any change in LLVM's ABI that changed their alignment, even if it would speed up code. I still occasionally run 20-year-old binaries, myself, that are dynamically linked to shared object files built with current compilers. Compatibility matters, I would not be on board with a change that breaks things like that. But that is not what is happening here. For i128, what clang implemented matched GCC, what LLVM implemented deviated from GCC/clang, but LLVM assumed that its implementation actually did match GCC/clang and code crashed as a result. This change would make it so that LLVM starts to also match GCC/clang, to change things from something that doesn't work to something that does work, and because things crash in current LLVM, I do not believe there can be much code out there that relies on the current behaviour. As you say, you aren't using i128/f128 yourself either. I hope that when I can update the patch, you can check that this does not cause problems for you.
@craig.topper Just to make sure, are you okay with me 'commandeering' this change and updating it? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D86310/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D86310 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
