[llvm] Question: What is the correct interpretation of LaneBitmask? (PR #109797)

[via llvm-commits]

github-actions[bot] wrote:

<!--LLVM CODE FORMAT COMMENT: {clang-format}-->


:warning: C/C++ code formatter, clang-format found issues in your code. :warning:

<details>
<summary>
You can test this locally with the following command:
</summary>

``````````bash
git-clang-format --diff 3c83102f0615c7d66f6df698ca472ddbf0e9483d 0f1ed85616670fe321918f199a9e9baedc50d578 --extensions cpp,h -- llvm/lib/CodeGen/TargetRegisterInfo.cpp llvm/lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64Subtarget.h
``````````

</details>

<details>
<summary>
View the diff from clang-format here.
</summary>

``````````diff
diff --git a/llvm/lib/CodeGen/TargetRegisterInfo.cpp b/llvm/lib/CodeGen/TargetRegisterInfo.cpp
index e62cdf7765..f4a2feac7c 100644
--- a/llvm/lib/CodeGen/TargetRegisterInfo.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/CodeGen/TargetRegisterInfo.cpp
@@ -552,9 +552,10 @@ bool TargetRegisterInfo::getCoveringSubRegIndexes(
     //
     // Which interpretation is correct?
     //
-    // A) If the meaning is 'if the bits are equal, the sub-registers overlap but
-    //    not necessarily fully', then we should fix the code in this function (in
-    //    a better way than just disabling it).
+    // A) If the meaning is 'if the bits are equal, the sub-registers overlap
+    // but
+    //    not necessarily fully', then we should fix the code in this function
+    //    (in a better way than just disabling it).
     //
     // B) If the meaning is 'if the bits are equal, the sub-registers overlap
     //    fully', then we can define the high bits with an artificial register.

``````````

</details>


https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/109797