As the data layout a few lines further up specifies, the int, long and
pointer alignment should be 16 instead of the default of 32.
The long long alignment is also incorrect, but that would require a
change to the data layout as well.
Comparison with GCC, which consistently uses 2 byte alignment:
https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/K3x6a7dEf At least based on some spot checks,
the changes to bit field layout also make use match GCC now.
This was found by https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/144720.
This is a follow-up from the conversation starting at
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/93809#issuecomment-2173729801
The root problem that motivated the change are external AST sources that
compute `ASTRecordLayout`s themselves instead of letting Clang compute
them from the AST. One such example is LLDB using DWARF to get the
definitive offsets and sizes of C++ structures. Such layouts should be
considered correct (modulo buggy DWARF), but various assertions and
lowering logic around the `CGRecordLayoutBuilder` relies on the AST
having `[[no_unique_address]]` attached to them. This is a
layout-altering attribute which is not encoded in DWARF. This causes us
LLDB to trip over the various LLVM<->Clang layout consistency checks.
There has been precedent for avoiding such layout-altering attributes
from affecting lowering with externally-provided layouts (e.g., packed
structs).
This patch proposes to replace the `isZeroSize` checks in
`CGRecordLayoutBuilder` (which roughly means "empty field with
[[no_unique_address]]") with checks for
`CodeGen::isEmptyField`/`CodeGen::isEmptyRecord`.
**Details**
The main strategy here was to change the `isZeroSize` check in
`CGRecordLowering::accumulateFields` and
`CGRecordLowering::accumulateBases` to use the `isEmptyXXX` APIs
instead, preventing empty fields from being added to the `Members` and
`Bases` structures. The rest of the changes fall out from here, to
prevent lookups into these structures (for field numbers or base
indices) from failing.
Added `isEmptyRecordForLayout` and `isEmptyFieldForLayout` (open to
better naming suggestions). The main difference to the existing
`isEmptyRecord`/`isEmptyField` APIs, is that the `isEmptyXXXForLayout`
counterparts don't have special treatment for `unnamed bitfields`/arrays
and also treat fields of empty types as if they had
`[[no_unique_address]]` (i.e., just like the `AsIfNoUniqueAddr` in
`isEmptyField` does).
This is a revert of ef5e7f90ea4d5063ce68b952c5de473e610afc02 which was a
temporary partial revert of 77ac823fd285973cfb3517932c09d82e6a32f46d.
The le32 and le64 targets are no longer necessary to retain, so this
removes them entirely.
