Re: [PATCH] libgccjit: Add support for setting the alignment [PR104293]

["Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen" <marc.nieper@gmail.com>]

I haven't checked the cause of the bug reported here [1]. It may
either be in the struct constructor code or in the new code for
alignments, so this email goes to both Antoni and Petter. Speaking of
struct constructors, I have found another bug [2]

Thanks,

Marc

--

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105296
[2] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105286

Am Mi., 13. Apr. 2022 um 13:47 Uhr schrieb Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
via Jit <jit@gcc.gnu.org>:
>
> On 12 April 2022 23:51:34 CEST, David Malcolm via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> >On Sat, 2022-04-09 at 13:50 -0400, Antoni Boucher wrote:
> >> Here's the updated patch.
> >>
>
> >I've pushed the patch to trunk for GCC 12 as r12-8120-g6e5ad1cc24a315.
> >
> >https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commitdiff;h=6e5ad1cc24a315d07f24c95d76c269cafe2a8182
>
>
> >> > > +   in C, but in bits instead of bytes.
> >> >
> >> > If we're doing it in bytes, this will need updating, of course.
> >> >
> >> > Maybe rename the int param from "alignment" to "bytes" to make this
> >> > clearer.
> >> >
> >> > Probably should be unsigned as well.
>
> >> > > +void
> >> > > +gcc_jit_lvalue_set_alignment (gcc_jit_lvalue *lvalue,
> >> > > +                             int alignment)
> >> > > +{
> >> > > +  RETURN_IF_FAIL (lvalue, NULL, NULL, "NULL lvalue");
> >> >
> >> > Should the alignment be unsigned?  What if the user passes in
> >> > negative?
> >> >
> >> > Does it have to be a power of two?  If so, ideally we should reject
> >> > non-power-of-two here.
>
> The wrapper was changed to unsigned bytes.
> set_alignment still takes int bytes AFAICS?
>
> Now I think there are or may be machine dependent max alignment, aren't there? If there are, they are enforced later in the pipeline I assume?
>
> thanks,