================
@@ -10,12 +10,46 @@ struct S {
// CHECK-LABEL: @_Z23get_offset_of_y_naivelyv(
// CHECK-NEXT: entry:
-// CHECK-NEXT: ret i64 ptrtoint (ptr getelementptr inbounds nuw
([[STRUCT_S:%.*]], ptr null, i32 0, i32 1) to i64)
+// CHECK-NEXT: ret i64 ptrtoint (ptr getelementptr ([[STRUCT_S:%.*]], ptr
null, i32 0, i32 1) to i64)
//
uintptr_t get_offset_of_y_naively() {
return ((uintptr_t)(&(((S *)nullptr)->y)));
}
+struct Empty {};
+
+struct T {
+ int a;
+ S s;
+ [[no_unique_address]] Empty e1;
+ int b;
+ [[no_unique_address]] Empty e2;
+};
+
+// CHECK-LABEL: @_Z30get_offset_of_y_naively_nestedv(
+// CHECK-NEXT: entry:
+// CHECK-NEXT: ret i64 ptrtoint (ptr getelementptr ([[STRUCT_S:%.*]], ptr
getelementptr ([[STRUCT_T:%.*]], ptr null, i32 0, i32 1), i32 0, i32 1) to i64)
+//
+uintptr_t get_offset_of_y_naively_nested() {
+ return ((uintptr_t)(&(((T *)nullptr)->s.y)));
----------------
AaronBallman wrote:
It would be good to have tests for other null pointer constants like `0`, but
there's a question of how deep down the rabbit hole we want the extension to
go. I think it makes sense to allow it only for null pointer constants, not
just any constant expression which converts to a null pointer. But maybe that's
too restrictive?
Suggested tests:
```
nullptr_t{} // Should probably be accepted because this is a valid null pointer
constant
constexpr void *null_ptr = nullptr; // Should probably be rejected, null_ptr is
not a null pointer constant
0 // Should be accepted because this is a valid null pointer constant
(void *)0 // Should only be accepted in C because it's a valid null pointer
constant there, but not in C++
```
and you should also ensure the C tests cover these cases as well.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/130734
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
