Thanks. Could someone please commit on my behalf? I don't have commit access.

In D110634#3027788, @jdoerfert wrote:

I think this looks good, need to update some tests though.

Separate clang and llvm changes. I'm still looking for clarification on what clang should be emitting in the non-power of case.

Thanks. Could someone please apply on my behalf?

This got fixed by b4c0307d598004cfd96c770d2a4a84a37c838ba9

In D106368#2890810, @lebedev.ri wrote:

In D106368#2890779, @spatel wrote:

In D106368#2890603, @jdoerfert wrote:

I still believe we should not create alignment annotations for non-power-of-two constants. This is the second time in a few weeks this causes problems and we still play whack-a-mole instead of restricting clang and teaching the verifier.

https://reviews.llvm.org/D94433

Ah, I didn't realize this is the same problem based on the reduced test. Someone familiar with this feature in Clang -- and compatibility with GCC? -- should have a look then ( @lebedev.ri @erichkeane ? ) - I have no idea what this is supposed to do.

We (clang) already diagnoses it, but doesn't refuse to codegen it.
I think it should just hard-error on it, without emitting IR.

Updated diff with context

Yes, if you can commit it I'd appreciate it.

They're overly reduced examples ;) but embedded programmers tend to make heavy use of shift operators, including within for loops and if stmts

Couple examples:

Is someone able to commit this change on my behalf?

Thanks for the review. I don't have commit access, is someone able to commit the change?