efriedma added a comment. Sure, I'm happy with the second option.
> Alignment at the call site might be higher than of the copy, breaking with > the idea that the call site and callee "properties" match. Though, the > attributes can probably be kept in sync if we teach the relevant parts. The meaning of the "align" attribute with byval is weird from any perspective: it specifies both the alignment of the allocation, and the required alignment of the input. It would be nice to separate those at some point. (That would probably mean something like `byval(<ty>, <align>)` to specify the alignment of the copied memory, and then the `align` attribute would just specify the alignment of the input, like it does for other calls.) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D79636/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D79636 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
