shafik added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/type-traits.cpp:2886-2889
+struct UnnamedEmptyBitfield {
+ int named;
+ int : 0;
+};
----------------
royjacobson wrote:
> royjacobson wrote:
> > shafik wrote:
> > > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > > I think there's one more test to add:
> > > > ```
> > > > struct UnnamedEmptyBitfieldSplit {
> > > > short named;
> > > > int : 0;
> > > > short also_named;
> > > > };
> > > > static_assert(sizeof(UnnamedEmptyBitfieldSplit) != (sizeof(short) * 2));
> > > > static_assert(!has_unique_object_representations<UnnamedEmptyBitfieldSplit>::value,
> > > > "Bitfield padding");
> > > > ```
> > > Do we also want to check packed structs as well?
> > Do you have a test case where it would matter? Apparently `packed` is
> > specified to ignore zero width bit fields.
> >
> small ping :) @shafik
Apologies, I just realized you thought I meant another zero sized bit-field
case whereas I meant just test packed in general w/ non-zero sized bit-fields.
The result should match for unpacked but it would be good to verify considering
we seem to always get bitten by cases we don't cover.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D145852/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D145852
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
