vleschuk added inline comments. ================ Comment at: lib/CodeGen/CGDebugInfo.cpp:3691 @@ -3635,1 +3690,3 @@ + if (D->hasAttr<AlignedAttr>()) + AlignInBits = D->getMaxAlignment(); StringRef DeclName, LinkageName; ---------------- probinson wrote: > dblaikie wrote: > > is max alignment the right thing here? Should it be min alignment? > > (is alignment in bits the desired thing across all of this too? It looked > > like in the backend patch there was some division by CHAR_BITS, etc?) > I should think bits is the right choice here; seems more the province of the > backend to convert it into the appropriate addressable units (commonly but > not universally chars). > is max alignment the right thing here? Should it be min alignment?
The DWARF document says: > This constant describes the actual alignment used by the compiler (if there > are multiple specified by the user, or if the user specified an alignment the > compiler couldn't satisfy, then only the strictest alignment will be added > through a DW_AT_alignment). So I think max alignment is right choice here. https://reviews.llvm.org/D24426 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
