================
@@ -1302,6 +1302,7 @@ ItaniumRecordLayoutBuilder::LayoutBase(const
BaseSubobjectInfo *Base) {
setSize(std::max(getSize(), Offset + Layout.getSize()));
// Remember max struct/class alignment.
+ UnadjustedAlignment = std::max(UnadjustedAlignment, PreferredBaseAlign);
----------------
hvdijk wrote:
The test case I added has a base class where the alignment is not the natural
alignment; GCC uses the alignment here, not the natural alignment, and Compiler
Explorer shows that MSVC agrees with GCC: https://godbolt.org/z/4qTY88EW1. The
existing `arm-vfp16-arguments2.cpp` test that is updated covers the case where
the alignment and natural alignment of the base class are the same.
Thanks for the pointer to get spec clarification. I'll wait for you to confirm
whether knowing that GCC and MSVC agree, you'd still like spec clarification; I
can ask there tomorrow if you like.
`BaseAlign` vs `PreferredBaseAlign` seems to only be relevant on AIX, unless I
am missing something? But thanks, `BaseAlign` is probably better to use, the
existing `UnadjustedAlignment = std::max(UnadjustedAlignment, FieldAlign);`
also doesn't use `PreferredAlign`. I'll make that change tomorrow when I can
confirm that it works as expected.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/135564
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
