arsenm added a comment. In D81311#2084066 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D81311#2084066>, @rjmccall wrote:
> In D81311#2083295 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D81311#2083295>, @arsenm wrote: > > > In D81311#2078235 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D81311#2078235>, @rjmccall > > wrote: > > > > > I wonder if `byref` would be a better name for this, as a way to say that > > > the object is semantically a direct argument that's being passed by > > > implicit reference. > > > > > > This is probably a better name, but potentially more easily confused with > > byval. > > > That seems like an unlikely confusion. > > > As far as switching to just the raw number, I think there's value in being > > consistent with the other growing family of type-carrying parameter > > attributes but I don't really care about the type itself. I don't > > understand inalloca/preallocated well enough to know if those should also > > really only carry a size. > > I think carrying a type is probably an attempt to insulate them against the > future removal of pointer element types. I don't think it's actually > necessary in either case and could certainly just be a size and alignment. > But if you want to use a type, I agree it's not inconsistent, and as long as > you honor an explicit alignment it's fine. The alignment is also technically a separate attribute and we generally don't require attributes to always be paired. I guess the verifier could require you to specify align if you use this, but that's another inconsistency CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D81311/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D81311 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
