sbc100 added a comment. In D151820#4385393 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D151820#4385393>, @dschuff wrote:
> I guess this is basically the C version of max_align_t so it should match. > but... this still has the potential to break things. True, but I think it's not as likely the break things as that change the max_align_t.. which is more commonly used. > e.g. it will change the allocation in > https://github.com/google/XNNPACK/blob/master/src/xnnpack/allocator.h#L66 I don't think it will change anything in that code since `__BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT__ >= XNN_ALLOCATION_ALIGNMENT` will still hold true both before and after this change (XNN_ALLOCATION_ALIGNMENT == 4 on wasm) > ISTR that was one of the projects that had an issue with this the first time > around? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D151820/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D151820 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
