[PATCH] D25620: DebugInfo: introduce DIAlignment type

[David Blaikie via llvm-commits]

Victor - was there any particular benefit/motivation for adding a new type
here that you had in mind/had discovered in implementing it? (or precedent
you were inspired by - I admit to not having all the DI* hierarchy paged in
these days, so perhaps I've missed some obvious prior art)

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:15 AM Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote:

> On Oct 14, 2016, at 10:13 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 9:59 AM Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 14, 2016, at 9:48 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Could someone point me to where the discussion for adding this type came
> out of? I didn't spot it at a cursory glance of the previous/existing
> threads.
>
> >
>
>
>
> This came out of the review thread in:
>
>
>
> D25073: [DebugInfo]: preparation to implement DW_AT_alignment
>
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D25073
>
>
>
> where I argued that we should not be using a full uint64_t for the
> alignment fields in the DI.* metadata nodes. I don't think the concrete
> solution of introducing a new alignment type has been discussed here before.
>
>
> Any particular benefits of introducing a new type? We don't I think have
> any wrapper types for otherwise singular numeric values, do we? (except
> maybe DIFlags?)
>
>
> I don't have a strong opinion about adding a new type. If we also had a
> separate type for sizes, we could potentially make the interface more
> typesafe to avoid accidentally confusing size and alignment, but that's
> about it.
>
> -- adrian
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- adrian
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20161014/16db09ed/attachment.html>