Michael137 wrote: Had to adjust `isEmptyFieldForLayout`/`isEmptyRecordForLayout` because `isEmptyField`/`isEmptyRecord` would call each other recursively, so dispatching from `isEmptyFieldForLayout` wouldn't have been correct (since the `isEmptyField`/`isEmptyRecord` have extra checks for unnamed bitfields and arrays which didn't make sense in the context of our emptiness check, correct me if I'm wrong here).
> For CGClass, it's not directly tied to the LLVM structure layout, but I'm not > sure the generated code would be semantically correct if an "empty" field > that isn't isEmpty() overlaps with actual data. I haven't addressed this yet. To clarify, are you referring to `addMemcpyableField` and `PushCleanupForField` (both of which check `isZeroSize`? So if we generated an overlap between an "empty" (but not `isEmpty`/`isZeroSize`) field and a non-empty field, previously `addMemcpyableField` wouldn't have considered the field for inclusion in the memcpy? So we should adjust the `isZeroSize` here too? Doing so didn't reflect in the test-suite, so it's possible there's some missing coverage here too https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96422 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
