[ARM, AArch64] Fix passing of structures with aligned base classes #18091
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…135564) RecordLayout::UnadjustedAlignment was documented as "Maximum of the alignments of the record members in characters", but RecordLayout::getUnadjustedAlignment(), which just returns UnadjustedAlignment, was documented as getting "the record alignment in characters, before alignment adjustement." These are not the same thing: the former excludes alignment of base classes, the latter takes it into account. ItaniumRecordLayoutBuilder::LayoutBase was setting it according to the former, but the AAPCS calling convention handling, currently the only user, relies on it being set according to the latter. Fixes #135551.
|
This is a cherry-pick from a commit that has been accepted into upstream LLVM. It affects DPC++ especially, because |
|
Is waiting for the pulldown not acceptable? |
|
I wouldn't quite go as far as calling it unacceptable, but it will be several weeks before the pulldown includes it, and this causes an error every time in oneAPI Construction Kit's nightly AArch64 testing against SYCL-CTS. It would be quite useful for us to have that working reliably. |
Fznamznon
approved these changes
Apr 22, 2025
|
This is ready to be merged @intel/llvm-gatekeepers |
vinser52
pushed a commit
to sergey-semenov/llvm
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 22, 2025
…ntel#18091) RecordLayout::UnadjustedAlignment was documented as "Maximum of the alignments of the record members in characters", but RecordLayout::getUnadjustedAlignment(), which just returns UnadjustedAlignment, was documented as getting "the record alignment in characters, before alignment adjustement." These are not the same thing: the former excludes alignment of base classes, the latter takes it into account. ItaniumRecordLayoutBuilder::LayoutBase was setting it according to the former, but the AAPCS calling convention handling, currently the only user, relies on it being set according to the latter. Fixes LLVM #135551.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
RecordLayout::UnadjustedAlignment was documented as "Maximum of the alignments of the record members in characters", but RecordLayout::getUnadjustedAlignment(), which just returns UnadjustedAlignment, was documented as getting "the record alignment in characters, before alignment adjustement." These are not the same thing: the former excludes alignment of base classes, the latter takes it into account. ItaniumRecordLayoutBuilder::LayoutBase was setting it according to the former, but the AAPCS calling convention handling, currently the only user, relies on it being set according to the latter.
Fixes LLVM #135551.