If the caller needs to reponsible for making sure the MaybeAlign
has a value, then we should just make the caller convert it to an Align
with operator*.
I explicitly deleted the relational comparison operators that
were being inherited from Optional. It's unclear what the meaning
of two MaybeAligns were one is defined and the other isn't
should be. So make the caller reponsible for defining the behavior.
I left the ==/!= operators from Optional. But now that exposed a
weird quirk that ==/!= between Align and MaybeAlign required the
MaybeAlign to be defined. But now we use the operator== from
Optional that takes an Optional and the Value.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80455
Summary:
This is a follow up on https://reviews.llvm.org/D71473#inline-647262.
There's a caveat here that `Align(1)` relies on the compiler understanding of `Log2_64` implementation to produce good code. One could use `Align()` as a replacement but I believe it is less clear that the alignment is one in that case.
Reviewers: xbolva00, courbet, bollu
Subscribers: arsenm, dylanmckay, sdardis, nemanjai, jvesely, nhaehnle, hiraditya, kbarton, jrtc27, atanasyan, jsji, Jim, kerbowa, cfe-commits, llvm-commits
Tags: #clang, #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73099
Summary:
This patch introduces a type to straighten LLVM's alignment management.
See this thread for context: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-July/133851.html
The next step is to use this type throughout LLVM
Reviewers: jfb, jakehehrlich
Subscribers: mgorny, mgrang, dexonsmith, llvm-commits, courbet
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64790
llvm-svn: 367393
Craig Topper