alignment: subtly change meaning of datatype_align #34473
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
vtjnash
force-pushed
the
jn/vec-align-32414
branch
from
add26de
to
cab4372
Compare
26 tasks
vtjnash
force-pushed
the
jn/vec-align-32414
branch
from
cab4372
to
5fbbb4d
Compare
|
Let's rebase this and try to get a better CI run. |
vtjnash
force-pushed
the
jn/vec-align-32414
branch
from
5fbbb4d
to
b308f8c
Compare
test/vecelement.jl
Outdated
| v = ntuple(w -> Float64(10w), Val(8)) | ||
| return a, (v, (a, (1e6, 1e9))) | ||
| end | ||
| @test bar32414(-35.0) === (-35.0, ((10.0, 20.0, 30.0, 40.0, 50.0, 60.0, 70.0, 80.0), (-35.0, (1.0e6, 1.0e9)))) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Unlike the example in #32414 this test passes for me on master. Should we add a version that includes VecElement?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
oh, I just pasted the wrong one here
Rather than meaning the actual alignment of the object, this now means the preferred alignment of the object. The actual alignment of any object is the minimum of this preferred alignment and the alignment supported by the runtime allocator. This aligns us with how LLVM treats alignment, and is probably reasonably sensible anyways. Also tries to audit our existing uses of CreateLoad/CreateStore for correctness, and upgrade some to include pointer-types. fixes #32414
vtjnash
force-pushed
the
jn/vec-align-32414
branch
from
b308f8c
to
407fecb
Compare
|
Doesn't backport cleanly. Can push a backport to #34517. |
|
Bump for backport. |
vtjnash
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 4, 2020
Rather than meaning the actual alignment of the object, this now means the preferred alignment of the object. The actual alignment of any object is the minimum of this preferred alignment and the alignment supported by the runtime allocator. This aligns us with how LLVM treats alignment, and is probably reasonably sensible anyways. Also tries to audit our existing uses of CreateLoad/CreateStore for correctness, and upgrade some to include pointer-types. fixes #32414
KristofferC
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 5, 2020
Rather than meaning the actual alignment of the object, this now means the preferred alignment of the object. The actual alignment of any object is the minimum of this preferred alignment and the alignment supported by the runtime allocator. This aligns us with how LLVM treats alignment, and is probably reasonably sensible anyways. Also tries to audit our existing uses of CreateLoad/CreateStore for correctness, and upgrade some to include pointer-types. fixes #32414 (cherry picked from commit 268ac24)
KristofferC
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 11, 2020
Rather than meaning the actual alignment of the object, this now means the preferred alignment of the object. The actual alignment of any object is the minimum of this preferred alignment and the alignment supported by the runtime allocator. This aligns us with how LLVM treats alignment, and is probably reasonably sensible anyways. Also tries to audit our existing uses of CreateLoad/CreateStore for correctness, and upgrade some to include pointer-types. fixes #32414
BioTurboNick
pushed a commit
to BioTurboNick/julia
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 13, 2020
Rather than meaning the actual alignment of the object, this now means the preferred alignment of the object. The actual alignment of any object is the minimum of this preferred alignment and the alignment supported by the runtime allocator. This aligns us with how LLVM treats alignment, and is probably reasonably sensible anyways. Also tries to audit our existing uses of CreateLoad/CreateStore for correctness, and upgrade some to include pointer-types. fixes JuliaLang#32414 (cherry picked from commit 268ac24)
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.
Rather than meaning the actual alignment of the object, this now means
the preferred alignment of the object. The actual alignment of any
object is the minimum of this preferred alignment and the alignment
supported by the runtime allocator. This aligns us with how LLVM treats
alignment, and is probably reasonably sensible anyways.
Also tries to audit our existing uses of CreateLoad/CreateStore for
correctness, and upgrade some to include pointer-types.
fixes #32414