void added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:18891
+ // incomplete definition.
+ if (const auto *RD = dyn_cast<RecordDecl>(D))
+ return !RD->isCompleteDefinition();
----------------
nickdesaulniers wrote:
> nickdesaulniers wrote:
> > void wrote:
> > > nickdesaulniers wrote:
> > > > what about `EnumDecl`s? I suspect the shared common base `TagDecl`
> > > > might be better to use?
> > > >
> > > > If it is, can you add a test? I'm guessing
> > > >
> > > > ```
> > > > struct foo {
> > > > enum havent_seen_yet;
> > > > enum havent_seen_yet2;
> > > > }
> > > > ```
> > > > would be the test case.
> > > Would testing for a `TagDecl` be better here?
> > I think so; common shared base and same logic for both cases here. Unless
> > there's something other than RecordDecl and EnumDecl where this shouldn't
> > apply.
> > Unless there's something other than RecordDecl and EnumDecl where this
> > shouldn't apply.
>
> The `TagDecl` constructor is only called from the `RecordDecl` and `EnumDecl`
> constructors. So I think it's simpler to just check `TagDecl` base type
> rather than each of the two derived types.
I like that better. Done. :)
================
Comment at: clang/test/CodeGen/init-randomized-struct-fwd-decl.c:2
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple=x86_64-unknown-linux -emit-llvm
-frandomize-layout-seed=1234567890abcdef < %s | FileCheck %s
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple=x86_64-unknown-linux -emit-llvm
-frandomize-layout-seed=1234567890abcdef -DFORWARD_DECL < %s | FileCheck
-check-prefix=FWD-DECL %s
+// PR60349
----------------
nickdesaulniers wrote:
> Is the second check prefix necessary? The check lines look the same to me,
> unless I'm missing something.
>
> Removing it should let us also drop the redundant FWD-DECL lines below.
It's there to check that the randomization doesn't change if the forward decl
is outside of the structure. However, Windows yet again uses a different
algorithm than Linux and generates a different randomized ordering. It's
annoying. I can remove this check.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D143300/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D143300
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
