The ability to specify alignment was recently added, and it's an
important property which we should ensure is set as expected by
Clang. (Especially before making further changes to Clang's code in
this area.) But, because it's on the end of the lines, the existing
tests all ignore it.
Therefore, update all the tests to also verify the expected alignment
for atomicrmw and cmpxchg. While I was in there, I also updated uses
of 'load atomic' and 'store atomic', and added the memory ordering,
where that was missing.
This is to fix PR34347. EmitAtomicExpr now only uses alignment information from
Type, instead of Decl, so when the declaration of an atomic variable is marked
to have the alignment equal as its size, EmitAtomicExpr doesn't know about it and
will generate libcall instead of atomic op. The patch uses EmitPointerWithAlignment
to get the precise alignment information.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37310
llvm-svn: 314145
This is to fix PR34347. EmitAtomicExpr now only uses alignment information from
Type, instead of Decl, so when the declaration of an atomic variable is marked
to have the alignment equal as its size, EmitAtomicExpr doesn't know about it and
will generate libcall instead of atomic op. The patch uses EmitPointerWithAlignment
to get the precise alignment information.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37310
llvm-svn: 312830
This is to fix PR34347. EmitAtomicExpr now only uses alignment information from
Type, instead of Decl, so when the declaration of an atomic variable is marked
to have the alignment equal as its size, EmitAtomicExpr doesn't know about it and
will generate libcall instead of atomic op. The patch uses EmitPointerWithAlignment
to get the precise alignment information.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37310
llvm-svn: 312801
James Y Knight