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).
These tests all require some adjustments to make sure that struct
types still get generated, mostly done by stripping pointer
indirections.
Some of this may no longer test the situation it was originally
intended for, e.g. the issue from pr18962 just doesn't really
exist anymore with opaque pointers, as we no longer generate
recursive types.
This adds -no-opaque-pointers to clang tests whose output will
change when opaque pointers are enabled by default. This is
intended to be part of the migration approach described in
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/enabling-opaque-pointers-by-default/61322/9.
The patch has been produced by replacing %clang_cc1 with
%clang_cc1 -no-opaque-pointers for tests that fail with opaque
pointers enabled. Worth noting that this doesn't cover all tests,
there's a remaining ~40 tests not using %clang_cc1 that will need
a followup change.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D123115
Clang uses two types to talk about a C++ class, the
NonVirtualBaseLLVMType and the LLVMType. Previously, we would allow one
of these to be packed and the other not.
This is problematic. If both don't agree on a common subset of fields,
then routines like getLLVMFieldNo will point to the wrong field. Solve
this by copying the 'packed'-ness of the complete type to the
non-virtual subobject. For this to work, we need to take into account
the non-virtual subobject's size and alignment when we are computing the
layout of the complete object.
This fixes PR21089.
llvm-svn: 218577
Clang is using llvm::StructType::isOpaque() as a way of signaling if
we've finished record type conversion in
CodeGenTypes::isRecordLayoutComplete(). However, Clang was setting the
body of the type before it finished laying out the type as a base type.
Laying out the %class.C.base LLVM type attempts to convert more types,
eventually recursively attempting to layout 'C' again, at which point we
would say that layout was complete, even though we were still in the
middle of it.
By not setting the body, we correctly signal that layout is not
complete, and things work as expected.
At some point, it might be worth refactoring this to avoid looking at
the LLVM IR types under construction.
llvm-svn: 202320
