rjmccall added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/TargetInfo.cpp:9232
+ if (IsFloat && Size > FLen)
+ return false;
+ // Can't be eligible if an integer type was already found (only fp+int or
----------------
Is this the only consideration for floating-point types? Clang does have
increasing support for `half` / various `float16` types.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/TargetInfo.cpp:9236
+ if (IsInt && Field1Ty && Field1Ty->isIntegerTy())
+ return false;
+ if (!Field1Ty) {
----------------
The comment here is wrong because fp+fp is allowed, right?
Is this not already caught by the post-processing checks you do in
`detectFPCCEligibleStruct`? Would it make more sense to just do all those
checks there?
================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/TargetInfo.cpp:9258
+ assert(CurOff.isZero() && "Unexpected offset for first field");
+ Field2Ty = CGT.ConvertType(EltTy);
+ Field2Off = getContext().getTypeSizeInChars(EltTy);
----------------
`Field2Ty = Field1Ty`, please.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/TargetInfo.cpp:9288
+ return false;
+ for (const FieldDecl *FD : RD->fields()) {
+ const ASTRecordLayout &Layout = getContext().getASTRecordLayout(RD);
----------------
I really expect there to be something in this block about whether the field is
a bit-field. What exactly does your ABI specify if there's a bit-field?
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D60456/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D60456
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
