[clang] [clang] Respect field alignment in layout compatibility of structs (PR #84313)

[Vlad Serebrennikov via cfe-commits]

https://github.com/Endilll closed 
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84313
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang] [clang] Respect field alignment in layout compatibility of structs (PR #84313)

[Vlad Serebrennikov via cfe-commits]

@@ -19185,7 +19185,7 @@ static bool isLayoutCompatible(ASTContext , EnumDecl 
*ED1, EnumDecl *ED2) {
 
 /// Check if two fields are layout-compatible.

Endilll wrote:

After an offline discussion, we agreed to keep the boolean, and to add an 
additional assert to ensure that the boolean is used correctly.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84313
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang] [clang] Respect field alignment in layout compatibility of structs (PR #84313)

[Vlad Serebrennikov via cfe-commits]

https://github.com/Endilll updated 
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84313

>From 491fc16c777aff8b22893da1cdeb8d137cf28871 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vlad Serebrennikov 
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 15:16:35 +0300
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] [clang] Respect field alignment when evaluating layout
 compatiblity of structs

This patch implements 
[CWG2586](https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/2583.html) "Common initial 
sequence should consider over-alignment ". Note that alignment of union members 
doesn't have to match, as layout compatibility of unions is not defined in 
terms of common initial sequence (http://eel.is/c++draft/class.mem.general#25).
---
 clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst|  4 
 clang/lib/Sema/SemaChecking.cpp|  9 +++--
 clang/test/CXX/drs/dr25xx.cpp  | 26 ++
 clang/test/SemaCXX/type-traits.cpp | 13 -
 clang/www/cxx_dr_status.html   |  2 +-
 5 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst b/clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
index 1b901a27fd19d1..62cc6aae4ee58b 100644
--- a/clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
+++ b/clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
@@ -115,6 +115,10 @@ Resolutions to C++ Defect Reports
   of two types.
   (`CWG1719: Layout compatibility and cv-qualification revisited 
`_).
 
+- Alignment of members is now respected when evaluating layout compatibility
+  of structs.
+  (`CWG2583: Common initial sequence should consider over-alignment 
`_).
+
 - ``[[no_unique_address]]`` is now respected when evaluating layout
   compatibility of two types.
   (`CWG2759: [[no_unique_address] and common initial sequence  
`_).
diff --git a/clang/lib/Sema/SemaChecking.cpp b/clang/lib/Sema/SemaChecking.cpp
index 3597f93a017136..5f607608cf7a53 100644
--- a/clang/lib/Sema/SemaChecking.cpp
+++ b/clang/lib/Sema/SemaChecking.cpp
@@ -19185,7 +19185,8 @@ static bool isLayoutCompatible(ASTContext , EnumDecl 
*ED1, EnumDecl *ED2) {
 
 /// Check if two fields are layout-compatible.
 static bool isLayoutCompatible(ASTContext , FieldDecl *Field1,
-   FieldDecl *Field2) {
+   FieldDecl *Field2,
+   bool IgnoreAlignment = false) {
   if (!isLayoutCompatible(C, Field1->getType(), Field2->getType()))
 return false;
 
@@ -19204,6 +19205,10 @@ static bool isLayoutCompatible(ASTContext , 
FieldDecl *Field1,
   if (Field1->hasAttr() ||
   Field2->hasAttr())
 return false;
+
+  if (!IgnoreAlignment &&
+  Field1->getMaxAlignment() != Field2->getMaxAlignment())
+return false;
   return true;
 }
 
@@ -19265,7 +19270,7 @@ static bool isLayoutCompatibleUnion(ASTContext , 
RecordDecl *RD1,
 E = UnmatchedFields.end();
 
 for ( ; I != E; ++I) {
-  if (isLayoutCompatible(C, Field1, *I)) {
+  if (isLayoutCompatible(C, Field1, *I, /*IgnoreAlignment=*/true)) {
 bool Result = UnmatchedFields.erase(*I);
 (void) Result;
 assert(Result);
diff --git a/clang/test/CXX/drs/dr25xx.cpp b/clang/test/CXX/drs/dr25xx.cpp
index 9fc7cf59485caa..46532486e50e53 100644
--- a/clang/test/CXX/drs/dr25xx.cpp
+++ b/clang/test/CXX/drs/dr25xx.cpp
@@ -211,6 +211,32 @@ namespace dr2565 { // dr2565: 16 open 2023-06-07
 #endif
 }
 
+namespace dr2583 { // dr2583: 19
+#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
+struct A {
+  int i;
+  char c;
+};
+
+struct B {
+  int i;
+  alignas(8) char c;
+};
+
+union U {
+  A a;
+  B b;
+};
+
+union V {
+  A a;
+  alignas(64) B b;
+};
+
+static_assert(!__is_layout_compatible(A, B), "");
+static_assert(__is_layout_compatible(U, V), "");
+#endif
+} // namespace dr2583
 
 namespace dr2598 { // dr2598: 18
 #if __cplusplus >= 201103L
diff --git a/clang/test/SemaCXX/type-traits.cpp 
b/clang/test/SemaCXX/type-traits.cpp
index 23c339ebdf0826..831de2589dcb9e 100644
--- a/clang/test/SemaCXX/type-traits.cpp
+++ b/clang/test/SemaCXX/type-traits.cpp
@@ -1681,6 +1681,16 @@ union UnionLayout3 {
   [[no_unique_address]] CEmptyStruct d;
 };
 
+union UnionNoOveralignedMembers {
+  int a;
+  double b;
+};
+
+union UnionWithOveralignedMembers {
+  int a;
+  alignas(16) double b;
+};
+
 struct StructWithAnonUnion {
   union {
 int a;
@@ -1771,7 +1781,8 @@ void is_layout_compatible(int n)
   static_assert(__is_layout_compatible(CStruct, CStructNoUniqueAddress) != 
bool(__has_cpp_attribute(no_unique_address)), "");
   static_assert(__is_layout_compatible(CStructNoUniqueAddress, 
CStructNoUniqueAddress2) != bool(__has_cpp_attribute(no_unique_address)), "");
   static_assert(__is_layout_compatible(CStruct, CStructAlignment), "");
-  static_assert(__is_layout_compatible(CStruct, CStructAlignedMembers), ""); 
// FIXME: alignment of members impact common initial sequence
+  static_assert(!__is_layout_compatible(CStruct, CStructAlignedMembers), "");
+  

[clang] [clang] Respect field alignment in layout compatibility of structs (PR #84313)

[Vlad Serebrennikov via cfe-commits]

@@ -19185,7 +19185,7 @@ static bool isLayoutCompatible(ASTContext , EnumDecl 
*ED1, EnumDecl *ED2) {
 
 /// Check if two fields are layout-compatible.

Endilll wrote:

Good catch! CWG2586 I implement here basically establish a different set of 
rules for layout compatibility of union members, and structs/classes are not 
layout compatible with unions by definition.

At this point I wonder if boolean is still needed, but my impression of our 
layout compatibility machinery is that it might be a bit too smart to infer the 
boolean. It's simple and recursive, without "looking back" so to say.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84313
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang] [clang] Respect field alignment in layout compatibility of structs (PR #84313)

[Vlad Serebrennikov via cfe-commits]

https://github.com/Endilll updated 
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84313

>From 491fc16c777aff8b22893da1cdeb8d137cf28871 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vlad Serebrennikov 
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 15:16:35 +0300
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] [clang] Respect field alignment when evaluating layout
 compatiblity of structs

This patch implements 
[CWG2586](https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/2583.html) "Common initial 
sequence should consider over-alignment ". Note that alignment of union members 
doesn't have to match, as layout compatibility of unions is not defined in 
terms of common initial sequence (http://eel.is/c++draft/class.mem.general#25).
---
 clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst|  4 
 clang/lib/Sema/SemaChecking.cpp|  9 +++--
 clang/test/CXX/drs/dr25xx.cpp  | 26 ++
 clang/test/SemaCXX/type-traits.cpp | 13 -
 clang/www/cxx_dr_status.html   |  2 +-
 5 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst b/clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
index 1b901a27fd19d1..62cc6aae4ee58b 100644
--- a/clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
+++ b/clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
@@ -115,6 +115,10 @@ Resolutions to C++ Defect Reports
   of two types.
   (`CWG1719: Layout compatibility and cv-qualification revisited 
`_).
 
+- Alignment of members is now respected when evaluating layout compatibility
+  of structs.
+  (`CWG2583: Common initial sequence should consider over-alignment 
`_).
+
 - ``[[no_unique_address]]`` is now respected when evaluating layout
   compatibility of two types.
   (`CWG2759: [[no_unique_address] and common initial sequence  
`_).
diff --git a/clang/lib/Sema/SemaChecking.cpp b/clang/lib/Sema/SemaChecking.cpp
index 3597f93a017136..5f607608cf7a53 100644
--- a/clang/lib/Sema/SemaChecking.cpp
+++ b/clang/lib/Sema/SemaChecking.cpp
@@ -19185,7 +19185,8 @@ static bool isLayoutCompatible(ASTContext , EnumDecl 
*ED1, EnumDecl *ED2) {
 
 /// Check if two fields are layout-compatible.
 static bool isLayoutCompatible(ASTContext , FieldDecl *Field1,
-   FieldDecl *Field2) {
+   FieldDecl *Field2,
+   bool IgnoreAlignment = false) {
   if (!isLayoutCompatible(C, Field1->getType(), Field2->getType()))
 return false;
 
@@ -19204,6 +19205,10 @@ static bool isLayoutCompatible(ASTContext , 
FieldDecl *Field1,
   if (Field1->hasAttr() ||
   Field2->hasAttr())
 return false;
+
+  if (!IgnoreAlignment &&
+  Field1->getMaxAlignment() != Field2->getMaxAlignment())
+return false;
   return true;
 }
 
@@ -19265,7 +19270,7 @@ static bool isLayoutCompatibleUnion(ASTContext , 
RecordDecl *RD1,
 E = UnmatchedFields.end();
 
 for ( ; I != E; ++I) {
-  if (isLayoutCompatible(C, Field1, *I)) {
+  if (isLayoutCompatible(C, Field1, *I, /*IgnoreAlignment=*/true)) {
 bool Result = UnmatchedFields.erase(*I);
 (void) Result;
 assert(Result);
diff --git a/clang/test/CXX/drs/dr25xx.cpp b/clang/test/CXX/drs/dr25xx.cpp
index 9fc7cf59485caa..46532486e50e53 100644
--- a/clang/test/CXX/drs/dr25xx.cpp
+++ b/clang/test/CXX/drs/dr25xx.cpp
@@ -211,6 +211,32 @@ namespace dr2565 { // dr2565: 16 open 2023-06-07
 #endif
 }
 
+namespace dr2583 { // dr2583: 19
+#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
+struct A {
+  int i;
+  char c;
+};
+
+struct B {
+  int i;
+  alignas(8) char c;
+};
+
+union U {
+  A a;
+  B b;
+};
+
+union V {
+  A a;
+  alignas(64) B b;
+};
+
+static_assert(!__is_layout_compatible(A, B), "");
+static_assert(__is_layout_compatible(U, V), "");
+#endif
+} // namespace dr2583
 
 namespace dr2598 { // dr2598: 18
 #if __cplusplus >= 201103L
diff --git a/clang/test/SemaCXX/type-traits.cpp 
b/clang/test/SemaCXX/type-traits.cpp
index 23c339ebdf0826..831de2589dcb9e 100644
--- a/clang/test/SemaCXX/type-traits.cpp
+++ b/clang/test/SemaCXX/type-traits.cpp
@@ -1681,6 +1681,16 @@ union UnionLayout3 {
   [[no_unique_address]] CEmptyStruct d;
 };
 
+union UnionNoOveralignedMembers {
+  int a;
+  double b;
+};
+
+union UnionWithOveralignedMembers {
+  int a;
+  alignas(16) double b;
+};
+
 struct StructWithAnonUnion {
   union {
 int a;
@@ -1771,7 +1781,8 @@ void is_layout_compatible(int n)
   static_assert(__is_layout_compatible(CStruct, CStructNoUniqueAddress) != 
bool(__has_cpp_attribute(no_unique_address)), "");
   static_assert(__is_layout_compatible(CStructNoUniqueAddress, 
CStructNoUniqueAddress2) != bool(__has_cpp_attribute(no_unique_address)), "");
   static_assert(__is_layout_compatible(CStruct, CStructAlignment), "");
-  static_assert(__is_layout_compatible(CStruct, CStructAlignedMembers), ""); 
// FIXME: alignment of members impact common initial sequence
+  static_assert(!__is_layout_compatible(CStruct, CStructAlignedMembers), "");
+  

[clang] [clang] Respect field alignment in layout compatibility of structs (PR #84313)

[Erich Keane via cfe-commits]

https://github.com/erichkeane approved this pull request.

I approve too, i trust you to update the comment for the new *PARAMETER* (not 
member, I'm a dummy) to make it clear.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84313
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang] [clang] Respect field alignment in layout compatibility of structs (PR #84313)

[via cfe-commits]

https://github.com/cor3ntin approved this pull request.

I am happy with that once @erichkeane's comment is addressed

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84313
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang] [clang] Respect field alignment in layout compatibility of structs (PR #84313)

[Erich Keane via cfe-commits]

@@ -19185,7 +19185,7 @@ static bool isLayoutCompatible(ASTContext , EnumDecl 
*ED1, EnumDecl *ED2) {
 
 /// Check if two fields are layout-compatible.

erichkeane wrote:

Can you update this comment for the new member?  Is it both fields that are 
union members, or just one?

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84313
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang] [clang] Respect field alignment in layout compatibility of structs (PR #84313)

[Vlad Serebrennikov via cfe-commits]

@@ -19185,7 +19185,8 @@ static bool isLayoutCompatible(ASTContext , EnumDecl 
*ED1, EnumDecl *ED2) {
 
 /// Check if two fields are layout-compatible.
 static bool isLayoutCompatible(ASTContext , FieldDecl *Field1,
-   FieldDecl *Field2) {
+   FieldDecl *Field2,
+   bool IgnoreAlignment = false) {

Endilll wrote:

> but mostly because it is from the wrong 'direction'

This is spot-on observation. I wasn't sure which direction should I look at 
this from, but seeing both of you agree, I'm happy to change this.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84313
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang] [clang] Respect field alignment in layout compatibility of structs (PR #84313)

[Vlad Serebrennikov via cfe-commits]

https://github.com/Endilll updated 
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84313

>From 491fc16c777aff8b22893da1cdeb8d137cf28871 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vlad Serebrennikov 
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 15:16:35 +0300
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [clang] Respect field alignment when evaluating layout
 compatiblity of structs

This patch implements 
[CWG2586](https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/2583.html) "Common initial 
sequence should consider over-alignment ". Note that alignment of union members 
doesn't have to match, as layout compatibility of unions is not defined in 
terms of common initial sequence (http://eel.is/c++draft/class.mem.general#25).
---
 clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst|  4 
 clang/lib/Sema/SemaChecking.cpp|  9 +++--
 clang/test/CXX/drs/dr25xx.cpp  | 26 ++
 clang/test/SemaCXX/type-traits.cpp | 13 -
 clang/www/cxx_dr_status.html   |  2 +-
 5 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst b/clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
index 1b901a27fd19d1..62cc6aae4ee58b 100644
--- a/clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
+++ b/clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
@@ -115,6 +115,10 @@ Resolutions to C++ Defect Reports
   of two types.
   (`CWG1719: Layout compatibility and cv-qualification revisited 
`_).
 
+- Alignment of members is now respected when evaluating layout compatibility
+  of structs.
+  (`CWG2583: Common initial sequence should consider over-alignment 
`_).
+
 - ``[[no_unique_address]]`` is now respected when evaluating layout
   compatibility of two types.
   (`CWG2759: [[no_unique_address] and common initial sequence  
`_).
diff --git a/clang/lib/Sema/SemaChecking.cpp b/clang/lib/Sema/SemaChecking.cpp
index 3597f93a017136..5f607608cf7a53 100644
--- a/clang/lib/Sema/SemaChecking.cpp
+++ b/clang/lib/Sema/SemaChecking.cpp
@@ -19185,7 +19185,8 @@ static bool isLayoutCompatible(ASTContext , EnumDecl 
*ED1, EnumDecl *ED2) {
 
 /// Check if two fields are layout-compatible.
 static bool isLayoutCompatible(ASTContext , FieldDecl *Field1,
-   FieldDecl *Field2) {
+   FieldDecl *Field2,
+   bool IgnoreAlignment = false) {
   if (!isLayoutCompatible(C, Field1->getType(), Field2->getType()))
 return false;
 
@@ -19204,6 +19205,10 @@ static bool isLayoutCompatible(ASTContext , 
FieldDecl *Field1,
   if (Field1->hasAttr() ||
   Field2->hasAttr())
 return false;
+
+  if (!IgnoreAlignment &&
+  Field1->getMaxAlignment() != Field2->getMaxAlignment())
+return false;
   return true;
 }
 
@@ -19265,7 +19270,7 @@ static bool isLayoutCompatibleUnion(ASTContext , 
RecordDecl *RD1,
 E = UnmatchedFields.end();
 
 for ( ; I != E; ++I) {
-  if (isLayoutCompatible(C, Field1, *I)) {
+  if (isLayoutCompatible(C, Field1, *I, /*IgnoreAlignment=*/true)) {
 bool Result = UnmatchedFields.erase(*I);
 (void) Result;
 assert(Result);
diff --git a/clang/test/CXX/drs/dr25xx.cpp b/clang/test/CXX/drs/dr25xx.cpp
index 9fc7cf59485caa..46532486e50e53 100644
--- a/clang/test/CXX/drs/dr25xx.cpp
+++ b/clang/test/CXX/drs/dr25xx.cpp
@@ -211,6 +211,32 @@ namespace dr2565 { // dr2565: 16 open 2023-06-07
 #endif
 }
 
+namespace dr2583 { // dr2583: 19
+#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
+struct A {
+  int i;
+  char c;
+};
+
+struct B {
+  int i;
+  alignas(8) char c;
+};
+
+union U {
+  A a;
+  B b;
+};
+
+union V {
+  A a;
+  alignas(64) B b;
+};
+
+static_assert(!__is_layout_compatible(A, B), "");
+static_assert(__is_layout_compatible(U, V), "");
+#endif
+} // namespace dr2583
 
 namespace dr2598 { // dr2598: 18
 #if __cplusplus >= 201103L
diff --git a/clang/test/SemaCXX/type-traits.cpp 
b/clang/test/SemaCXX/type-traits.cpp
index 23c339ebdf0826..831de2589dcb9e 100644
--- a/clang/test/SemaCXX/type-traits.cpp
+++ b/clang/test/SemaCXX/type-traits.cpp
@@ -1681,6 +1681,16 @@ union UnionLayout3 {
   [[no_unique_address]] CEmptyStruct d;
 };
 
+union UnionNoOveralignedMembers {
+  int a;
+  double b;
+};
+
+union UnionWithOveralignedMembers {
+  int a;
+  alignas(16) double b;
+};
+
 struct StructWithAnonUnion {
   union {
 int a;
@@ -1771,7 +1781,8 @@ void is_layout_compatible(int n)
   static_assert(__is_layout_compatible(CStruct, CStructNoUniqueAddress) != 
bool(__has_cpp_attribute(no_unique_address)), "");
   static_assert(__is_layout_compatible(CStructNoUniqueAddress, 
CStructNoUniqueAddress2) != bool(__has_cpp_attribute(no_unique_address)), "");
   static_assert(__is_layout_compatible(CStruct, CStructAlignment), "");
-  static_assert(__is_layout_compatible(CStruct, CStructAlignedMembers), ""); 
// FIXME: alignment of members impact common initial sequence
+  static_assert(!__is_layout_compatible(CStruct, CStructAlignedMembers), "");
+  

[clang] [clang] Respect field alignment in layout compatibility of structs (PR #84313)

[via cfe-commits]

@@ -19185,7 +19185,8 @@ static bool isLayoutCompatible(ASTContext , EnumDecl 
*ED1, EnumDecl *ED2) {
 
 /// Check if two fields are layout-compatible.
 static bool isLayoutCompatible(ASTContext , FieldDecl *Field1,
-   FieldDecl *Field2) {
+   FieldDecl *Field2,
+   bool IgnoreAlignment = false) {

cor3ntin wrote:

Exactly!

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84313
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang] [clang] Respect field alignment in layout compatibility of structs (PR #84313)

[Erich Keane via cfe-commits]

@@ -19185,7 +19185,8 @@ static bool isLayoutCompatible(ASTContext , EnumDecl 
*ED1, EnumDecl *ED2) {
 
 /// Check if two fields are layout-compatible.
 static bool isLayoutCompatible(ASTContext , FieldDecl *Field1,
-   FieldDecl *Field2) {
+   FieldDecl *Field2,
+   bool IgnoreAlignment = false) {

erichkeane wrote:

Yeah,I agree with Corentin, but mostly because it is from the wrong 
'direction'.  Bools like this should be named in a way that makes it easy for a 
user of this function, with no understanding of the implementation to 
understand.

So it should be, "I want to know if these two are layout compatible... Why 
would I ignore alignment?" vs "Oh, I'm not dealing with a union member, so I 
can set this false!".

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84313
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang] [clang] Respect field alignment in layout compatibility of structs (PR #84313)

[via cfe-commits]

@@ -19185,7 +19185,8 @@ static bool isLayoutCompatible(ASTContext , EnumDecl 
*ED1, EnumDecl *ED2) {
 
 /// Check if two fields are layout-compatible.
 static bool isLayoutCompatible(ASTContext , FieldDecl *Field1,
-   FieldDecl *Field2) {
+   FieldDecl *Field2,
+   bool IgnoreAlignment = false) {

cor3ntin wrote:

I think I would prefer calling that `IsUnionMember` or something like that (and 
reverse the condition everywhere)

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84313
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang] [clang] Respect field alignment in layout compatibility of structs (PR #84313)

[via cfe-commits]

https://github.com/cor3ntin commented:

I only have a comment otherwise LGTM

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84313
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang] [clang] Respect field alignment in layout compatibility of structs (PR #84313)

[via cfe-commits]

https://github.com/cor3ntin edited 
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84313
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang] [clang] Respect field alignment in layout compatibility of structs (PR #84313)

[Vlad Serebrennikov via cfe-commits]

https://github.com/Endilll edited 
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84313
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits