mizvekov added a comment. In D110216#3044102 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D110216#3044102>, @aaronpuchert wrote:
> Unless I'm missing something, alignment on aliases is itself fragile. Let's > say you have some template, then the instantiation with the alias is of > course the same as the instantiation with the canonical type, so if that > template has a member or local variable of that type parameter that won't get > the alignment. If the attribute was not just type sugar and could be made part of the canonical type, then the attribute would have to be attached to the canonical type of the alias when building it, in a similar way to how you don't lose other structural parts of the type when canonicalizing it. But then you would have to deal with the whole mess this would cause in the rest of clang :) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D110216/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D110216 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
