gchatelet added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CGCUDANV.cpp:491
new llvm::LoadInst(Var->getType(), ManagedVar, "ld.managed", false,
- llvm::Align(Var->getAlignment()), I);
+ Var->getAlign().valueOrOne(), I);
WorkItem.pop_back();
----------------
tra wrote:
> This appears to be a change in behavior. AFAICT, previously used
> Var->getAlignment() could return alignment value or 0. Now it's value or 1.
>
> Is it intentional?
The previous statement was constructing an `llvm::Align` from a value, and
`llvm::Align` [asserts when the provided value is
0](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/4ab2246d486ba30c4b2d654323a0c0b97565c0f1/llvm/include/llvm/Support/Alignment.h#L76-L81).
This means that it is undefined to pass the value `0`.
As far as `LoadInst` is concerned it can only accept valid alignments (i.e.,
powers of two => non zero).
So you're right that it is not strictly NFC and that `*Var->getAlign()`would be
a more rigorous transformation but I //think// that converting the `0` value to
`1` moves us from UB to semantically valid code.
I don't feel strongly about it though and I'm fine changing this to
`*Var->getAlign()` to keep this patch NFC. WDYT?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D142459/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D142459
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
