t.p.northover added a comment.
I'm fine with the ABI changes, but I'm not very convinced by the
"NaturalAlignment" name.
Far from being a privileged alignment kind, it seems to take account of a
pretty arbitrary set of modifiers. In fact, I can't help wondering if what's
really happened is that ARM has decided to document existing GCC practice as
the path of least resistance and scrambled for a name. This would be fine in
ARM-specific code but could be quite misleading in the generic ASTContext.
Personally I'd go for `ARMNaturalAlignment` and stop pretending it's something
anyone else needs to care about (at least until some other ABI comes along that
does).
================
Comment at: lib/CodeGen/TargetInfo.cpp:5055
+ Alignment = getContext().getTypeNaturalAlign(Ty);
+ Alignment = std::min(std::max(Alignment, 64u), 128u);
+ } else {
----------------
I think the max/min logic is more confusing here than the alternative:
Alignment = Alignment < 128 ? 64 : 128;
https://reviews.llvm.org/D46013
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
