sbc100 added a comment. In D104808#2836991 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D104808#2836991>, @kripken wrote:
> In D104808#2836942 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D104808#2836942>, @sunfish wrote: > >> Do we still intend to unify Emscripten's ABI with wasm32-unknown-unknown or >> wasm32-wasi eventually? This is talking a step away from that. > > I definitely think we should unify them as much as possible. Ideally we would > all make this change. > > The motivation for the change is that right now we are losing either some > correctness or some performance. Either is a burden, and a possible future > float128 in wasm doesn't seem strong enough of a justification to me - should > wasm add float128, we can consider a new ABI at that point. Does that sound > reasonable? > >> One of the assumptions behind this is that it would be ok for malloc to be >> 16-byte aligned anyway, because SIMD use cases benefit from being able to >> call `malloc` and get a buffer aligned for SIMD. Do we have more information >> on how much this matters in practice? > > I think the discussions converged on it being ok with the spec, but perhaps a > problem in practice, but portable SIMD code seems smart enough to avoid the > issue. I don't think I've seen a bug report mentioning SIMD, but I may have > missed one. Indeed, we have had reports of issues with the under-alignment of values returns from malloc, but I don't think any of them have been related to SIMD, only the expectation that malloc honors `max_align_t`. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D104808/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D104808 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
