MitalAshok wrote:
Ping
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92103
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
MitalAshok wrote:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/b0ae923ada836fa2c9114ac2c5afb39466f49fe0/clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst#L210-L212
Should be enough for ReleaseNotes, since not much has changed since Clang 18
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92103
https://github.com/MitalAshok updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92103
>From 5908130604728b9aa9b70eeb2523d368df08e68d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mital Ashok
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 08:28:19 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] [Clang] Fix definition of layout-compatible to ignore
rjmccall wrote:
Changing a type trait is generally always an ABI problem, but yeah, if this
hasn't been released yet, we're still free to fix basic bugs.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92103
___
cfe-commits mailing list
dwblaikie wrote:
Ah, OK - guess this might not be an ABI issue, then - carry on :) (I'll leave
it to other Clang-y folks to do the rest of the review, the ABI issues were my
only concern)
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92103
___
MitalAshok wrote:
Clang only uses `Sema::isLayoutCompatible` in two places: to implement
`__is_layout_compatible` and [Clang type safety checking
attributes](https://clang.llvm.org/docs/AttributeReference.html#type-safety-checking),
which warn if a pointer does not point to a layout
dwblaikie wrote:
> @dwblaikie This patch will bring Clang in line with GCC and MSVC:
> https://godbolt.org/z/nj715zbsW
would the change be ABI incompatible with previous versions of clang? If so,
then it'll need to be versioned in Clang's ClangABI handling, so that platforms
(like Sony's
https://github.com/MitalAshok updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92103
>From 5908130604728b9aa9b70eeb2523d368df08e68d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mital Ashok
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 08:28:19 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] [Clang] Fix definition of layout-compatible to ignore
@@ -561,6 +561,42 @@ void CXXRecordDecl::addedClassSubobject(CXXRecordDecl
*Subobj) {
data().StructuralIfLiteral = false;
}
+const CXXRecordDecl *CXXRecordDecl::getStandardLayoutBaseWithFields() const {
+#ifndef NDEBUG
+ {
+assert(
+isStandardLayout() &&
+
MitalAshok wrote:
@dwblaikie This patch will bring Clang in line with GCC and MSVC:
https://godbolt.org/z/nj715zbsW
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92103
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
@@ -561,6 +561,42 @@ void CXXRecordDecl::addedClassSubobject(CXXRecordDecl
*Subobj) {
data().StructuralIfLiteral = false;
}
+const CXXRecordDecl *CXXRecordDecl::getStandardLayoutBaseWithFields() const {
+#ifndef NDEBUG
+ {
+assert(
+isStandardLayout() &&
+
https://github.com/Endilll commented:
Thank you for working on this!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92103
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -561,6 +561,42 @@ void CXXRecordDecl::addedClassSubobject(CXXRecordDecl
*Subobj) {
data().StructuralIfLiteral = false;
}
+const CXXRecordDecl *CXXRecordDecl::getStandardLayoutBaseWithFields() const {
+#ifndef NDEBUG
Endilll wrote:
We have
@@ -561,6 +561,42 @@ void CXXRecordDecl::addedClassSubobject(CXXRecordDecl
*Subobj) {
data().StructuralIfLiteral = false;
}
+const CXXRecordDecl *CXXRecordDecl::getStandardLayoutBaseWithFields() const {
+#ifndef NDEBUG
+ {
+assert(
+isStandardLayout() &&
+
https://github.com/Endilll edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92103
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
dwblaikie wrote:
How's this compare with other implementations clang is trying to be compatible
with (gcc (in the normal clang driver mode) and msvc (in clang-cl mode))? Would
this be an ABI break against them, or is this intended as an ABI fix to align
better with them? Or some third option?
https://github.com/MitalAshok updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92103
>From 5908130604728b9aa9b70eeb2523d368df08e68d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mital Ashok
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 08:28:19 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] [Clang] Fix definition of layout-compatible to ignore empty
https://github.com/MitalAshok updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92103
>From 74e133215e7ba9049fb021eb9bbb130347496503 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mital Ashok
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 08:28:19 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] [Clang] Fix definition of layout-compatible to ignore empty
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang
Author: Mital Ashok (MitalAshok)
Changes
Also changes the behaviour of `__builtin_is_layout_compatible`
None of the historic nor the current definition of layout-compatible classes
mention anything about base classes (other than implicitly
https://github.com/MitalAshok created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92103
Also changes the behaviour of `__builtin_is_layout_compatible`
None of the historic nor the current definition of layout-compatible classes
mention anything about base classes (other than implicitly through
20 matches
Mail list logo
