arsenm wrote:
> > > > Incrementing by align is just a bug, of course the size is the real
> > > > value. Whether we want to continue wasting space is another
> > > > not-correctness discussion
> > >
> > >
> > > Struct padding is pretty universal, AMDGPU seems the odd one out here. I
> > > wouldn't mind it so much if it didn't require me to know which vendor I
> > > was dealing with in the RPC implementation, but I suppose I could store
> > > that information somewhere if we want to use a compressed option and we
> > > know it works.
> >
> >
> > It's not about struct padding, but the base alignment. Any pointer
> > increment should be alignTo(ptr + size, align), not += align. The += align
> > won't even work for large structs
>
> Hm, that's what I'm doing in the `printf` implementation and it doesn't work
> without that patch. When I look at the varargs struct it didn't have any
> padding, which explained why `alignTo(ptr + size, align)` was wrong. So, I
> was trying to do the following, `printf("%d%ld", 1, 1l)`. With this patch I
> get the following,
For what IR? Is the small struct getting expanded into individual scalar
pieces?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96370
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
