dwblaikie wrote: > That would mean if someone wrote `struct Empty {}; struct Z { Empty a,b,c; > }`, we'd lower it to `{ [3 x i8] }` instead of `{%Empty, %Empty, %Empty}`, > which is a bit ugly. Other than that, sure, I guess we could do that.
Ah, fair enough. Glad to understand and I don't feel /super/ strongly either way. Though it might help with confidence if codegen didn't depend on this property at all (that it depends on the property a bit may make it harder to detect if later codegen depends on the property in a real/ABI-breaking way). The struct layout validation stuff that @Michael137 found may be adequate to provide confidence (especially combined with fuzzing, maybe) without the need for the codegen-is-zero-length-independent invariant. I don't feel too strongly - mostly happy with whatever Clang owners are happy with. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/93809 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits