[PATCH] D25620: DebugInfo: introduce DIAlignment type

[Adrian Prantl via llvm-commits]

I'm fine with using uint32_t here, since it is more readable and it accurately represents the number of bits available to encode this in the bitcode.

-- adrian
> On Oct 17, 2016, at 9:53 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Pretty sure a bunch of other stuff in LLVM would break if it were built on such a platform, but I'm not sure if we have an explicit agreement that certain properties like unsigned being 32 bits are required for LLVM.
> 
> I'll leave it up to Adrian.
> 
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 9:43 AM Victor Leschuk <vleschuk at accesssoftek.com <mailto:vleschuk at accesssoftek.com>> wrote:
> vleschuk added a comment.
> 
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D25620#571724 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D25620#571724>, @aprantl wrote:
> 
> > After letting this sit for a few days, I think that using an unsigned (there doesn't seem to be much precedent for uint32_t) is the way to go. It's more readable than an opaque DIAlignment type (whose size isn't obvious from the name).
> 
> 
> What about platforms where sizeof(unsigned) could be 2, standard does allow that, I'd rather use cstdint types.
> 
> 
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D25620 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D25620>
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20161017/4400e674/attachment-0001.html>