Ping.
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Nico Weber <[email protected]> wrote: > The attached patch implements your suggestion (without the max). I > verified that this passes on x86 os x and arm android. > > > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Nico Weber <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Marshall Clow <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> On May 28, 2014, at 4:36 AM, Nico Weber <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> > Hi, >>> > >>> > On arm, the maxium alignment is 8. The attached patch tweaks >>> meta.trans.other/aligned_storage.pass.cpp so that it passes on arm. (The >>> test currently assumes that alignment goes up to at least 16.) >>> >>> Nico — >>> >>> I’m a bit leery of >>> + static_assert(std::alignment_of<T1>::value == alignof(T1), ""); >>> b/c I’m not sure that it tests what we want to test here. >>> >>> Is there some way that we can use max_align_t in this test? >>> >>> Maybe something like (untested code): >>> static_assert ( std::alignment_of<T1>::value == std::max(16, >>> alignof(std::max_align_t)); >>> >> >> Why the max? On arm, alignof(max_align_t) is 8 (just like alignof(T1)), >> so max(16, alignof(max_aling_t)) is 16, while std::alignment_of<T1>::value >> is 8. >> >> static_assert(std::alignment_of<T1>::value == >> alignof(std::max_align_t), ""); >> >> does work though, if you like that better. Should I just >> s/alignof(T1)/alignof(std::max_align_t)/ in my patch? >> >> >>> >>> — Marshall >>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
