Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
- Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.6k
[wasm] Use ordinary struct alignment for Int128/UInt128 on wasm#131421
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Jump to
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ public override ComputedInstanceFieldLayout ComputeInstanceLayout(DefType defTyp | ||
| ComputedInstanceFieldLayout layoutFromMetadata = _fallbackAlgorithm.ComputeInstanceLayout(defType, layoutKind); | ||
| // 32bit platforms use standard metadata layout engine | ||
| if (defType.Context.Target.Architecture == TargetArchitecture.ARM) | ||
| if (defType.Context.Target.Architecture is TargetArchitecture.ARM or TargetArchitecture.Wasm32) | ||
| { | ||
| layoutFromMetadata.LayoutAbiStable = true; | ||
| layoutFromMetadata.IsInt128OrHasInt128Fields = true; | ||
Comment on lines
+34
to
37
MemberAuthor There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Added Note This comment was generated by GitHub Copilot. | ||
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Correct that the comment is imprecise — X86 is 32-bit and does take the 16-byte override. That imprecision predates this change though, and the condition it describes is right there on the next line, so I'd rather not expand it here: rewording a pre-existing comment is unrelated churn, and per repo convention comments are kept minimal because inaccurate ones mislead and need maintenance.
Happy to fix it if a maintainer would prefer.
Note
This comment was generated by GitHub Copilot.