Summary:
As @rsmith notes in https://reviews.llvm.org/D73020#inline-672219
while that is certainly UB land, it may not be actually reachable at runtime, e.g.:
```
template<int N> void *make() {
if ((N & (N-1)) == 0)
return operator new(N, std::align_val_t(N));
else
return operator new(N);
}
void *p = make<7>();
```
and we shouldn't really error-out there.
That being said, i'm not really following the logic here.
Which ones of these cases should remain being an error?
Reviewers: rsmith, erichkeane
Reviewed By: erichkeane
Subscribers: cfe-commits, rsmith
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73996
Summary:
`alloc_align` attribute takes parameter number, not the alignment itself,
so given **just** the attribute/function declaration we can't do any
sanity checking for said alignment.
However, at call site, given the actual `Expr` that is passed
into that parameter, we //might// be able to evaluate said `Expr`
as Integer Constant Expression, and perform the sanity checks.
But since there is no requirement for that argument to be an immediate,
we may fail, and that's okay.
However if we did evaluate, we should enforce the same constraints
as with `__builtin_assume_aligned()`/`__attribute__((assume_aligned(imm)))`:
said alignment is a power of two, and is not greater than our magic threshold
This was initially committed in c2a9061ac5
but reverted in 00756b1823 because of
suspicious bot failures.
Reviewers: erichkeane, aaron.ballman, hfinkel, rsmith, jdoerfert
Reviewed By: erichkeane
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72996
Summary:
`alloc_align` attribute takes parameter number, not the alignment itself,
so given **just** the attribute/function declaration we can't do any
sanity checking for said alignment.
However, at call site, given the actual `Expr` that is passed
into that parameter, we //might// be able to evaluate said `Expr`
as Integer Constant Expression, and perform the sanity checks.
But since there is no requirement for that argument to be an immediate,
we may fail, and that's okay.
However if we did evaluate, we should enforce the same constraints
as with `__builtin_assume_aligned()`/`__attribute__((assume_aligned(imm)))`:
said alignment is a power of two, and is not greater than our magic threshold
Reviewers: erichkeane, aaron.ballman, hfinkel, rsmith, jdoerfert
Reviewed By: erichkeane
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72996
GCC has the alloc_align attribute, which is similar to assume_aligned, except the attribute's parameter is the index of the integer parameter that needs aligning to.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29599
llvm-svn: 299117
Roman Lebedev