efriedma-quic wrote: > Is clang aware of the target's default function alignment?
No? On x86, the "default" is set by the line `setPrefFunctionAlignment(Align(16));`. Which, as the name suggests, is supposed to be a preference, not a mandatory minimum. And it's subject to change in the future if we find that a different number is better on some targets, or for certain functions. > > there isn't any obvious reason to special-case "cold" functions. > > I'd thought that was clear. Cold implies opt-for-size, which implies align(1) If there's a relevant ABI rule here, we want to mark it on all functions. So if, for example, some optimization decides a function is cold, we get the same result. > If the tweak to the definition of "cold" should be specific to our targets, > we can certainly do that. If there's some relevant ABI rule, clang should compute the required alignment explicitly, and explicitly mark functions with the required alignment. If that's target-specific, that's fine. Ideally, it should be controllable by a flag separate from the optimization level. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/72387 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
