================
@@ -151,7 +151,7 @@ class LLVM_LIBRARY_VISIBILITY SparcV8TargetInfo : public
SparcTargetInfo {
public:
SparcV8TargetInfo(const llvm::Triple &Triple, const TargetOptions &Opts)
: SparcTargetInfo(Triple, Opts) {
- resetDataLayout("E-m:e-p:32:32-i64:64-f128:64-n32-S64");
+ resetDataLayout("E-m:e-p:32:32-i64:64-i128:128-f128:64-n32-S64");
----------------
koachan wrote:
Yes, it is. IIRC the bug report is in the context of Rust which doesn't target
32-bit SPARCs, but the mismatch exists for it as well, with clang frontend
[reusing the default int128 alignment of 128
bits](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/da61b0ddc5dcc8f1ac64eaddabdbfec5aa23f22b/clang/lib/Basic/TargetInfo.cpp#L77).
I do think that for 32-bit SPARC the value is probably debatable given that
it's unspecified in the ABI docs and neither GCC nor clang would actually
compile int128 code for it (so there's no de facto standard either), but at
that moment what I had in mind is to at least sync the clang and LLVM values,
hence the change.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/106951
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
