In D127052#3560815, @JonChesterfield wrote:

Hoping this is uncontroversial - got more patches to follow up with if we can land this,

• fixed the hip-link-bundle-archive.hip test issue on Windows
• fixed a couple of formatting issues

update the failing lit tests to recognize the new switches

update the clang-offload-bundler-asserts-on test

fix lit test failures on Windows, rebased

In D117494#3254762, @yaxunl wrote:

I am OK for now. We may need keep an eye for the perf regression and be prepared to figure a way to alleviate that.

Check for zero-sized and move the check into the existing loop.

LGTM

Minor clean up in the hip-header.hip test

Adding test

LGTM

LGTM

LGTM

In D31210#706955, @yaxunl wrote:

In D31210#706890, @kzhuravl wrote:

In D31210#706880, @rampitec wrote:

I'm concerned about the default address space to be 64 bit. It would move alloca into generic address space effectively making private address to be 64 bit.
This may have very undesirable performance implications, like address arithmetic can become expensive 64 bit and only be truncated at load or store.
I realize you will use addrspacecast on an alloca's value, though I'm not sure that is sufficient to mitigate performance hit.
I believe such change shall not be made without a good performance comparison with the feature enabled, provided the very likely performance issues.

Did not we want to use this: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-March/111199.html and use non-0 for our allocas?

Our final goal is to let alloca return private pointer. The Clang changes are mostly common whether alloca returns generic pointer or private pointer. Actually to be able to test the above patch we need to get the changes in Clang done first.

LGTM