lebedev.ri added a comment. @arsenm are you happy with the test coverage here?
In D108661#2963519 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D108661#2963519>, @craig.topper wrote: > Wild speculation. This may be a historical artifact of LoadInst and StoreInst > having their getAlignment() function written like this when this limit was > created > > unsigned getAlignment() const { > return (1 << (getSubclassDataFromInstruction() >> 1)) >> 1; > } > > Because "1" is signed int the left shift produced a signed int. The final > right shift would be an arithmetic shift. So if the alignment was 1 << 30, > the subclass data would be 31, the shift would produce INT_MIN, and the > arithmetic right shift would produce 0xc0000000 which would be incorrect. > > AllocaInst used 1U instead of 1 so would have been immune. That does seem plausible :) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D108661/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D108661 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
