urnathan added a comment. In D118804#3304280 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D118804#3304280>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D118804#3304261 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D118804#3304261>, @urnathan > wrote: > >> While C2X has blessed such smaller alignments, the x86_64 ABI (in >> particular), has not. However, using that ABI to justify 'It. Is. 16. >> Bytes.', is really an exercise in reality denial at this point. just >> thought I'd make it clear we have conflicting standards and practicality to >> attend to. > > Do we want me to report back to WG14 with information that N2293 might not > suitable for adoption into C2x? I think N2293 is fine for C2x. It is blessing an implementation of lower alignment allocations. Putting the programmer on notice that they can no longer assume some things. As a compiler I think we need to deal with the reality that there are non-ABI conforming [system-dependent] allocators out there, and not simply say 'But the ABI says ...' There is already at least one thing the ABI says that is not valid on some systems [sret return behaviour and Swift], for equally good reasons. The compiler deals with that. FWIW, although gcc's code generation has a similar bug, its C++ library is already cognizant of lower-alignment allocators -- I convinced Mr Wakely a few years ago :) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D118804/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D118804 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
