Summary:
Much like with the previous patch (D73005) with `AssumeAlignedAttr`
handling, results in mildly more readable IR,
and will improve test coverage in upcoming patch.
Note that in `AllocAlignAttr`'s case, there is no requirement
for that alignment parameter to end up being an I-C-E.
Reviewers: erichkeane, jdoerfert, hfinkel, aaron.ballman, rsmith
Reviewed By: erichkeane
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73006
Summary:
This should be mostly NFC - we still lower the same alignment
knowledge to the IR. The main reasoning here is that
this somewhat improves readability of IR like this,
and will improve test coverage in upcoming patch.
Even though the alignment is guaranteed to always be an I-C-E,
we don't always materialize it as llvm's Alignment Attribute because:
1. There may be a non-zero offset
2. We may be sanitizing for alignment
Note that if there already was an IR alignment attribute
on return value, we union them, and thus the alignment
only ever rises.
Also, there is a second relevant clang attribute `AllocAlignAttr`,
so that is why `AbstractAssumeAlignedAttrEmitter` is templated.
Reviewers: erichkeane, jdoerfert, hfinkel, aaron.ballman, rsmith
Reviewed By: erichkeane
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73005
Summary:
We shouldn't be just giving up if we find one of them
(like we currently do with `AssumeAlignedAttr`),
we should emit them all.
As the tests show, even if we materialized good knowledge
from `__attribute__((assume_aligned(32)`, it doesn't mean
`__attribute__((alloc_align([...])))` info won't be useful.
It might be, but that isn't given.
Reviewers: erichkeane, jdoerfert, aaron.ballman
Reviewed By: erichkeane
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72979
Roman Lebedev