Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "getaddressableunitsize".
Did you mean:
getaddresssableunitsize
2019 May 06
2
RFC: On removing magic numbers assuming 8-bit bytes
...Origin->getValueSizeInBits(0) / 8;
assert(!(Origin->getValueSizeInBits(0) & 0x7) == 0 &&
"The size of the original loaded type is not a
"multiple of a byte.");
How would you prefer we handle this? If we only remove the magic
numbers using getAddressableUnitSize() instead of getBitsPerByte() we'd
get some mixed terminology. If the community is ok with that, we're
happy to do this. If we would go for changing the terminology overall,
then the work and the patch sizes would grow considerably.
BR,
Jesper
On Fri, 2019-05-03 at 20:17 +0000, Finkel, H...
2019 May 03
2
RFC: On removing magic numbers assuming 8-bit bytes
Jeroen Dobbelaere via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes:
> Hi Jesper,
>
>> Thanks, these are interesting differences. The CHAR_BIT and byte
>> relation is established in the C standard and I would prefer the byte
>> terminology. It means the same thing as addressable unit but is a bit
>> shorter and probably more widely known.
>
> Looking