Fixes#64619
Clang warns diagnostic for non-standard layout types in `offsetof` only
if they are in evaluated context. With this patch, you'll also get
diagnostic if you use `offsetof` on non-standard layout types in any
other contexts
We have a new policy in place making links to private resources
something we try to avoid in source and test files. Normally, we'd
organically switch to the new policy rather than make a sweeping change
across a project. However, Clang is in a somewhat special circumstance
currently: recently, I've had several new contributors run into rdar
links around test code which their patch was changing the behavior of.
This turns out to be a surprisingly bad experience, especially for
newer folks, for a handful of reasons: not understanding what the link
is and feeling intimidated by it, wondering whether their changes are
actually breaking something important to a downstream in some way,
having to hunt down strangers not involved with the patch to impose on
them for help, accidental pressure from asking for potentially private
IP to be made public, etc. Because folks run into these links entirely
by chance (through fixing bugs or working on new features), there's not
really a set of problematic links to focus on -- all of the links have
basically the same potential for causing these problems. As a result,
this is an omnibus patch to remove all such links.
This was not a mechanical change; it was done by manually searching for
rdar, radar, radr, and other variants to find all the various
problematic links. From there, I tried to retain or reword the
surrounding comments so that we would lose as little context as
possible. However, because most links were just a plain link with no
supporting context, the majority of the changes are simple removals.
Differential Review: https://reviews.llvm.org/D158071
This diagnostic (which defaults to an error, added in
95833f33bda6c92e746e0b0007b69c2c30bfc693) was intended to clearly
point out cases where the C++ ABI won't match the Microsoft C++ ABI,
for cases when this is enabled via a pragma over a region of code.
The MSVC compatible struct layout feature can also be enabled via a
compiler option (-mms-bitfields). If enabled that way, one essentially
can't compile any C++ code unless also building with
-Wno-incompatible-ms-struct (which GCC doesn't support, and projects
developed with GCC aren't setting).
For the MinGW target, it's expected that the C++ ABI won't match
the MSVC one, if this option is used for getting the struct
layout to match MSVC.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D81794
(Keep -Wmsvc-include around as an alias.)
While here, also replace the one other mention of "MSVC" in diagnostics with
"Microsoft", for consistency.
llvm-svn: 243444
or virtual functions, but permit that error to be downgraded to
a warning (with -Wno-error=incompatible-ms-struct), and officially
support this kind of dual, ABI-mixing layout.
The basic problem here is that projects which use ms_struct are often
not very circumspect about what types they annotate; for example,
some projects enable the pragma in a prefix header and then only
selectively disable it around system header inclusions. They may
only care about binary compatibility with MSVC for a subset of
those structs, but that doesn't mean they have no binary
compatibility concerns at all for the rest; thus we are essentially
forced into supporting this hybrid ABI. But it's reasonable for
us to at least point out the places where we're not making
any guarantees.
The original diagnostic was for dynamic classes, i.e. those with
virtual functions or virtual bases; I've extended it to include
all classes with bases, because we are not actually making any
attempt to duplicate MSVC's base subobject layout in ms_struct
(and it is indeed quite different from Itanium, even for
non-virtual bases).
rdar://16178895
llvm-svn: 202427
The old implementation of ms_struct in RecordLayoutBuilder was a
complete mess: it depended on complicated conditionals which didn't
really reflect the underlying logic, and placed a burden on users of
the resulting RecordLayout. This commit rips out almost all of the
old code, and replaces it with simple checks in
RecordLayoutBuilder::LayoutBitField.
This commit also fixes <rdar://problem/14252115>, a bug where class
inheritance would cause us to lay out bitfields incorrectly.
llvm-svn: 185018
