llvm-project/clang/test/CodeGen/override-layout.c

165 lines
3.1 KiB
C
Raw Normal View History

// RUN: %clang_cc1 -w -fdump-record-layouts %s > %t.layouts
// RUN: %clang_cc1 -w -fdump-record-layouts-simple %s > %t.before
// RUN: %clang_cc1 -w -DPACKED= -DALIGNED16= -fdump-record-layouts-simple -foverride-record-layout=%t.layouts %s > %t.after
Extend the ExternalASTSource interface to allow the AST source to provide the layout of records, rather than letting Clang compute the layout itself. LLDB provides the motivation for this feature: because various layout-altering attributes (packed, aligned, etc.) don't get reliably get placed into DWARF, the record layouts computed by LLDB from the reconstructed records differ from the actual layouts, and badness occurs. This interface lets the DWARF data drive layout, so we don't need the attributes preserved to get the answer write. The testing methodology for this change is fun. I've introduced a variant of -fdump-record-layouts called -fdump-record-layouts-simple that always has the simple C format and provides size/alignment/field offsets. There is also a -cc1 option -foverride-record-layout=<file> to take the output of -fdump-record-layouts-simple and parse it to produce a set of overridden layouts, which is introduced into the AST via a testing-only ExternalASTSource (called LayoutOverrideSource). Each test contains a number of records to lay out, which use various layout-changing attributes, and then dumps the layouts. We then run the test again, using the preprocessor to eliminate the layout-changing attributes entirely (which would give us different layouts for the records), but supplying the previously-computed record layouts. Finally, we diff the layouts produced from the two runs to be sure that they are identical. Note that this code makes the assumption that we don't *have* to provide the offsets of bases or virtual bases to get the layout right, because the alignment attributes don't affect it. I believe this assumption holds, but if it does not, we can extend LayoutOverrideSource to also provide base offset information. Fixes the Clang side of <rdar://problem/10169539>. llvm-svn: 149055
2012-01-26 15:55:45 +08:00
// RUN: diff %t.before %t.after
// RUN: FileCheck %s < %t.after
// If not explicitly disabled, set PACKED to the packed attribute.
#ifndef PACKED
# define PACKED __attribute__((packed))
#endif
// If not explicitly disabled, set ALIGNED16 to 16-byte alignment.
#ifndef ALIGNED16
# define ALIGNED16 __attribute__((aligned(16)))
#endif
// CHECK: Type: struct X0
struct X0 {
int x[6] PACKED;
};
void use_X0() { struct X0 x0; x0.x[5] = sizeof(struct X0); };
Extend the ExternalASTSource interface to allow the AST source to provide the layout of records, rather than letting Clang compute the layout itself. LLDB provides the motivation for this feature: because various layout-altering attributes (packed, aligned, etc.) don't get reliably get placed into DWARF, the record layouts computed by LLDB from the reconstructed records differ from the actual layouts, and badness occurs. This interface lets the DWARF data drive layout, so we don't need the attributes preserved to get the answer write. The testing methodology for this change is fun. I've introduced a variant of -fdump-record-layouts called -fdump-record-layouts-simple that always has the simple C format and provides size/alignment/field offsets. There is also a -cc1 option -foverride-record-layout=<file> to take the output of -fdump-record-layouts-simple and parse it to produce a set of overridden layouts, which is introduced into the AST via a testing-only ExternalASTSource (called LayoutOverrideSource). Each test contains a number of records to lay out, which use various layout-changing attributes, and then dumps the layouts. We then run the test again, using the preprocessor to eliminate the layout-changing attributes entirely (which would give us different layouts for the records), but supplying the previously-computed record layouts. Finally, we diff the layouts produced from the two runs to be sure that they are identical. Note that this code makes the assumption that we don't *have* to provide the offsets of bases or virtual bases to get the layout right, because the alignment attributes don't affect it. I believe this assumption holds, but if it does not, we can extend LayoutOverrideSource to also provide base offset information. Fixes the Clang side of <rdar://problem/10169539>. llvm-svn: 149055
2012-01-26 15:55:45 +08:00
// CHECK: Type: struct X1
struct X1 {
char x[13];
struct X0 y;
} PACKED;
void use_X1() { struct X1 x1; x1.x[5] = sizeof(struct X1); };
Extend the ExternalASTSource interface to allow the AST source to provide the layout of records, rather than letting Clang compute the layout itself. LLDB provides the motivation for this feature: because various layout-altering attributes (packed, aligned, etc.) don't get reliably get placed into DWARF, the record layouts computed by LLDB from the reconstructed records differ from the actual layouts, and badness occurs. This interface lets the DWARF data drive layout, so we don't need the attributes preserved to get the answer write. The testing methodology for this change is fun. I've introduced a variant of -fdump-record-layouts called -fdump-record-layouts-simple that always has the simple C format and provides size/alignment/field offsets. There is also a -cc1 option -foverride-record-layout=<file> to take the output of -fdump-record-layouts-simple and parse it to produce a set of overridden layouts, which is introduced into the AST via a testing-only ExternalASTSource (called LayoutOverrideSource). Each test contains a number of records to lay out, which use various layout-changing attributes, and then dumps the layouts. We then run the test again, using the preprocessor to eliminate the layout-changing attributes entirely (which would give us different layouts for the records), but supplying the previously-computed record layouts. Finally, we diff the layouts produced from the two runs to be sure that they are identical. Note that this code makes the assumption that we don't *have* to provide the offsets of bases or virtual bases to get the layout right, because the alignment attributes don't affect it. I believe this assumption holds, but if it does not, we can extend LayoutOverrideSource to also provide base offset information. Fixes the Clang side of <rdar://problem/10169539>. llvm-svn: 149055
2012-01-26 15:55:45 +08:00
// CHECK: Type: struct X2
struct PACKED X2 {
short x;
int y;
};
void use_X2() { struct X2 x2; x2.y = sizeof(struct X2); };
Extend the ExternalASTSource interface to allow the AST source to provide the layout of records, rather than letting Clang compute the layout itself. LLDB provides the motivation for this feature: because various layout-altering attributes (packed, aligned, etc.) don't get reliably get placed into DWARF, the record layouts computed by LLDB from the reconstructed records differ from the actual layouts, and badness occurs. This interface lets the DWARF data drive layout, so we don't need the attributes preserved to get the answer write. The testing methodology for this change is fun. I've introduced a variant of -fdump-record-layouts called -fdump-record-layouts-simple that always has the simple C format and provides size/alignment/field offsets. There is also a -cc1 option -foverride-record-layout=<file> to take the output of -fdump-record-layouts-simple and parse it to produce a set of overridden layouts, which is introduced into the AST via a testing-only ExternalASTSource (called LayoutOverrideSource). Each test contains a number of records to lay out, which use various layout-changing attributes, and then dumps the layouts. We then run the test again, using the preprocessor to eliminate the layout-changing attributes entirely (which would give us different layouts for the records), but supplying the previously-computed record layouts. Finally, we diff the layouts produced from the two runs to be sure that they are identical. Note that this code makes the assumption that we don't *have* to provide the offsets of bases or virtual bases to get the layout right, because the alignment attributes don't affect it. I believe this assumption holds, but if it does not, we can extend LayoutOverrideSource to also provide base offset information. Fixes the Clang side of <rdar://problem/10169539>. llvm-svn: 149055
2012-01-26 15:55:45 +08:00
// CHECK: Type: struct X3
struct X3 {
short x PACKED;
int y;
};
void use_X3() { struct X3 x3; x3.y = sizeof(struct X3); };
Extend the ExternalASTSource interface to allow the AST source to provide the layout of records, rather than letting Clang compute the layout itself. LLDB provides the motivation for this feature: because various layout-altering attributes (packed, aligned, etc.) don't get reliably get placed into DWARF, the record layouts computed by LLDB from the reconstructed records differ from the actual layouts, and badness occurs. This interface lets the DWARF data drive layout, so we don't need the attributes preserved to get the answer write. The testing methodology for this change is fun. I've introduced a variant of -fdump-record-layouts called -fdump-record-layouts-simple that always has the simple C format and provides size/alignment/field offsets. There is also a -cc1 option -foverride-record-layout=<file> to take the output of -fdump-record-layouts-simple and parse it to produce a set of overridden layouts, which is introduced into the AST via a testing-only ExternalASTSource (called LayoutOverrideSource). Each test contains a number of records to lay out, which use various layout-changing attributes, and then dumps the layouts. We then run the test again, using the preprocessor to eliminate the layout-changing attributes entirely (which would give us different layouts for the records), but supplying the previously-computed record layouts. Finally, we diff the layouts produced from the two runs to be sure that they are identical. Note that this code makes the assumption that we don't *have* to provide the offsets of bases or virtual bases to get the layout right, because the alignment attributes don't affect it. I believe this assumption holds, but if it does not, we can extend LayoutOverrideSource to also provide base offset information. Fixes the Clang side of <rdar://problem/10169539>. llvm-svn: 149055
2012-01-26 15:55:45 +08:00
#pragma pack(push,2)
// CHECK: Type: struct X4
struct X4 {
int x;
int y;
};
#pragma pack(pop)
void use_X4() { struct X4 x4; x4.y = sizeof(struct X4); };
Extend the ExternalASTSource interface to allow the AST source to provide the layout of records, rather than letting Clang compute the layout itself. LLDB provides the motivation for this feature: because various layout-altering attributes (packed, aligned, etc.) don't get reliably get placed into DWARF, the record layouts computed by LLDB from the reconstructed records differ from the actual layouts, and badness occurs. This interface lets the DWARF data drive layout, so we don't need the attributes preserved to get the answer write. The testing methodology for this change is fun. I've introduced a variant of -fdump-record-layouts called -fdump-record-layouts-simple that always has the simple C format and provides size/alignment/field offsets. There is also a -cc1 option -foverride-record-layout=<file> to take the output of -fdump-record-layouts-simple and parse it to produce a set of overridden layouts, which is introduced into the AST via a testing-only ExternalASTSource (called LayoutOverrideSource). Each test contains a number of records to lay out, which use various layout-changing attributes, and then dumps the layouts. We then run the test again, using the preprocessor to eliminate the layout-changing attributes entirely (which would give us different layouts for the records), but supplying the previously-computed record layouts. Finally, we diff the layouts produced from the two runs to be sure that they are identical. Note that this code makes the assumption that we don't *have* to provide the offsets of bases or virtual bases to get the layout right, because the alignment attributes don't affect it. I believe this assumption holds, but if it does not, we can extend LayoutOverrideSource to also provide base offset information. Fixes the Clang side of <rdar://problem/10169539>. llvm-svn: 149055
2012-01-26 15:55:45 +08:00
// CHECK: Type: struct X5
struct PACKED X5 { double a[19]; signed char b; };
void use_X5() { struct X5 x5; x5.b = sizeof(struct X5); };
Extend the ExternalASTSource interface to allow the AST source to provide the layout of records, rather than letting Clang compute the layout itself. LLDB provides the motivation for this feature: because various layout-altering attributes (packed, aligned, etc.) don't get reliably get placed into DWARF, the record layouts computed by LLDB from the reconstructed records differ from the actual layouts, and badness occurs. This interface lets the DWARF data drive layout, so we don't need the attributes preserved to get the answer write. The testing methodology for this change is fun. I've introduced a variant of -fdump-record-layouts called -fdump-record-layouts-simple that always has the simple C format and provides size/alignment/field offsets. There is also a -cc1 option -foverride-record-layout=<file> to take the output of -fdump-record-layouts-simple and parse it to produce a set of overridden layouts, which is introduced into the AST via a testing-only ExternalASTSource (called LayoutOverrideSource). Each test contains a number of records to lay out, which use various layout-changing attributes, and then dumps the layouts. We then run the test again, using the preprocessor to eliminate the layout-changing attributes entirely (which would give us different layouts for the records), but supplying the previously-computed record layouts. Finally, we diff the layouts produced from the two runs to be sure that they are identical. Note that this code makes the assumption that we don't *have* to provide the offsets of bases or virtual bases to get the layout right, because the alignment attributes don't affect it. I believe this assumption holds, but if it does not, we can extend LayoutOverrideSource to also provide base offset information. Fixes the Clang side of <rdar://problem/10169539>. llvm-svn: 149055
2012-01-26 15:55:45 +08:00
// CHECK: Type: struct X6
struct PACKED X6 { long double a; char b; };
void use_X6() { struct X6 x6; x6.b = sizeof(struct X6); };
Extend the ExternalASTSource interface to allow the AST source to provide the layout of records, rather than letting Clang compute the layout itself. LLDB provides the motivation for this feature: because various layout-altering attributes (packed, aligned, etc.) don't get reliably get placed into DWARF, the record layouts computed by LLDB from the reconstructed records differ from the actual layouts, and badness occurs. This interface lets the DWARF data drive layout, so we don't need the attributes preserved to get the answer write. The testing methodology for this change is fun. I've introduced a variant of -fdump-record-layouts called -fdump-record-layouts-simple that always has the simple C format and provides size/alignment/field offsets. There is also a -cc1 option -foverride-record-layout=<file> to take the output of -fdump-record-layouts-simple and parse it to produce a set of overridden layouts, which is introduced into the AST via a testing-only ExternalASTSource (called LayoutOverrideSource). Each test contains a number of records to lay out, which use various layout-changing attributes, and then dumps the layouts. We then run the test again, using the preprocessor to eliminate the layout-changing attributes entirely (which would give us different layouts for the records), but supplying the previously-computed record layouts. Finally, we diff the layouts produced from the two runs to be sure that they are identical. Note that this code makes the assumption that we don't *have* to provide the offsets of bases or virtual bases to get the layout right, because the alignment attributes don't affect it. I believe this assumption holds, but if it does not, we can extend LayoutOverrideSource to also provide base offset information. Fixes the Clang side of <rdar://problem/10169539>. llvm-svn: 149055
2012-01-26 15:55:45 +08:00
// CHECK: Type: struct X7
struct X7 {
Extend the ExternalASTSource interface to allow the AST source to provide the layout of records, rather than letting Clang compute the layout itself. LLDB provides the motivation for this feature: because various layout-altering attributes (packed, aligned, etc.) don't get reliably get placed into DWARF, the record layouts computed by LLDB from the reconstructed records differ from the actual layouts, and badness occurs. This interface lets the DWARF data drive layout, so we don't need the attributes preserved to get the answer write. The testing methodology for this change is fun. I've introduced a variant of -fdump-record-layouts called -fdump-record-layouts-simple that always has the simple C format and provides size/alignment/field offsets. There is also a -cc1 option -foverride-record-layout=<file> to take the output of -fdump-record-layouts-simple and parse it to produce a set of overridden layouts, which is introduced into the AST via a testing-only ExternalASTSource (called LayoutOverrideSource). Each test contains a number of records to lay out, which use various layout-changing attributes, and then dumps the layouts. We then run the test again, using the preprocessor to eliminate the layout-changing attributes entirely (which would give us different layouts for the records), but supplying the previously-computed record layouts. Finally, we diff the layouts produced from the two runs to be sure that they are identical. Note that this code makes the assumption that we don't *have* to provide the offsets of bases or virtual bases to get the layout right, because the alignment attributes don't affect it. I believe this assumption holds, but if it does not, we can extend LayoutOverrideSource to also provide base offset information. Fixes the Clang side of <rdar://problem/10169539>. llvm-svn: 149055
2012-01-26 15:55:45 +08:00
unsigned x;
unsigned char y;
} PACKED;
void use_X7() { struct X7 x7; x7.y = x7.x = sizeof(struct X7); }
Extend the ExternalASTSource interface to allow the AST source to provide the layout of records, rather than letting Clang compute the layout itself. LLDB provides the motivation for this feature: because various layout-altering attributes (packed, aligned, etc.) don't get reliably get placed into DWARF, the record layouts computed by LLDB from the reconstructed records differ from the actual layouts, and badness occurs. This interface lets the DWARF data drive layout, so we don't need the attributes preserved to get the answer write. The testing methodology for this change is fun. I've introduced a variant of -fdump-record-layouts called -fdump-record-layouts-simple that always has the simple C format and provides size/alignment/field offsets. There is also a -cc1 option -foverride-record-layout=<file> to take the output of -fdump-record-layouts-simple and parse it to produce a set of overridden layouts, which is introduced into the AST via a testing-only ExternalASTSource (called LayoutOverrideSource). Each test contains a number of records to lay out, which use various layout-changing attributes, and then dumps the layouts. We then run the test again, using the preprocessor to eliminate the layout-changing attributes entirely (which would give us different layouts for the records), but supplying the previously-computed record layouts. Finally, we diff the layouts produced from the two runs to be sure that they are identical. Note that this code makes the assumption that we don't *have* to provide the offsets of bases or virtual bases to get the layout right, because the alignment attributes don't affect it. I believe this assumption holds, but if it does not, we can extend LayoutOverrideSource to also provide base offset information. Fixes the Clang side of <rdar://problem/10169539>. llvm-svn: 149055
2012-01-26 15:55:45 +08:00
// CHECK: Type: union X8
union X8 {
struct X7 x;
unsigned y;
} PACKED;
// CHECK: Type: struct X9
struct X9 {
unsigned int x[2] PACKED;
unsigned int y;
unsigned int z PACKED;
};
// CHECK: Type: struct X10
struct X10 {
unsigned int x[2] PACKED;
unsigned int y PACKED;
unsigned int z PACKED;
};
// CHECK: Type: struct X11
struct PACKED X11 {
unsigned int x[2];
unsigned int y;
unsigned int z;
};
// CHECK: Type: struct X12
struct PACKED X12 {
int x : 24;
};
// CHECK: Type: struct X13
struct PACKED X13 {
signed x : 10;
signed y : 10;
};
// CHECK: Type: union X14
union PACKED X14 {
unsigned long long x : 3;
};
// CHECK: Type: struct X15
struct X15 {
unsigned x : 16;
unsigned y : 28 PACKED;
};
// CHECK: Type: struct X16
struct ALIGNED16 X16 {
int a, b, c;
int x : 5;
int y : 29;
};
void use_structs() {
union X8 x8;
typedef int X8array[sizeof(union X8)];
Extend the ExternalASTSource interface to allow the AST source to provide the layout of records, rather than letting Clang compute the layout itself. LLDB provides the motivation for this feature: because various layout-altering attributes (packed, aligned, etc.) don't get reliably get placed into DWARF, the record layouts computed by LLDB from the reconstructed records differ from the actual layouts, and badness occurs. This interface lets the DWARF data drive layout, so we don't need the attributes preserved to get the answer write. The testing methodology for this change is fun. I've introduced a variant of -fdump-record-layouts called -fdump-record-layouts-simple that always has the simple C format and provides size/alignment/field offsets. There is also a -cc1 option -foverride-record-layout=<file> to take the output of -fdump-record-layouts-simple and parse it to produce a set of overridden layouts, which is introduced into the AST via a testing-only ExternalASTSource (called LayoutOverrideSource). Each test contains a number of records to lay out, which use various layout-changing attributes, and then dumps the layouts. We then run the test again, using the preprocessor to eliminate the layout-changing attributes entirely (which would give us different layouts for the records), but supplying the previously-computed record layouts. Finally, we diff the layouts produced from the two runs to be sure that they are identical. Note that this code makes the assumption that we don't *have* to provide the offsets of bases or virtual bases to get the layout right, because the alignment attributes don't affect it. I believe this assumption holds, but if it does not, we can extend LayoutOverrideSource to also provide base offset information. Fixes the Clang side of <rdar://problem/10169539>. llvm-svn: 149055
2012-01-26 15:55:45 +08:00
x8.y = sizeof(union X8);
x8.x.x = x8.y;
Extend the ExternalASTSource interface to allow the AST source to provide the layout of records, rather than letting Clang compute the layout itself. LLDB provides the motivation for this feature: because various layout-altering attributes (packed, aligned, etc.) don't get reliably get placed into DWARF, the record layouts computed by LLDB from the reconstructed records differ from the actual layouts, and badness occurs. This interface lets the DWARF data drive layout, so we don't need the attributes preserved to get the answer write. The testing methodology for this change is fun. I've introduced a variant of -fdump-record-layouts called -fdump-record-layouts-simple that always has the simple C format and provides size/alignment/field offsets. There is also a -cc1 option -foverride-record-layout=<file> to take the output of -fdump-record-layouts-simple and parse it to produce a set of overridden layouts, which is introduced into the AST via a testing-only ExternalASTSource (called LayoutOverrideSource). Each test contains a number of records to lay out, which use various layout-changing attributes, and then dumps the layouts. We then run the test again, using the preprocessor to eliminate the layout-changing attributes entirely (which would give us different layouts for the records), but supplying the previously-computed record layouts. Finally, we diff the layouts produced from the two runs to be sure that they are identical. Note that this code makes the assumption that we don't *have* to provide the offsets of bases or virtual bases to get the layout right, because the alignment attributes don't affect it. I believe this assumption holds, but if it does not, we can extend LayoutOverrideSource to also provide base offset information. Fixes the Clang side of <rdar://problem/10169539>. llvm-svn: 149055
2012-01-26 15:55:45 +08:00
struct X9 x9;
typedef int X9array[sizeof(struct X9)];
Extend the ExternalASTSource interface to allow the AST source to provide the layout of records, rather than letting Clang compute the layout itself. LLDB provides the motivation for this feature: because various layout-altering attributes (packed, aligned, etc.) don't get reliably get placed into DWARF, the record layouts computed by LLDB from the reconstructed records differ from the actual layouts, and badness occurs. This interface lets the DWARF data drive layout, so we don't need the attributes preserved to get the answer write. The testing methodology for this change is fun. I've introduced a variant of -fdump-record-layouts called -fdump-record-layouts-simple that always has the simple C format and provides size/alignment/field offsets. There is also a -cc1 option -foverride-record-layout=<file> to take the output of -fdump-record-layouts-simple and parse it to produce a set of overridden layouts, which is introduced into the AST via a testing-only ExternalASTSource (called LayoutOverrideSource). Each test contains a number of records to lay out, which use various layout-changing attributes, and then dumps the layouts. We then run the test again, using the preprocessor to eliminate the layout-changing attributes entirely (which would give us different layouts for the records), but supplying the previously-computed record layouts. Finally, we diff the layouts produced from the two runs to be sure that they are identical. Note that this code makes the assumption that we don't *have* to provide the offsets of bases or virtual bases to get the layout right, because the alignment attributes don't affect it. I believe this assumption holds, but if it does not, we can extend LayoutOverrideSource to also provide base offset information. Fixes the Clang side of <rdar://problem/10169539>. llvm-svn: 149055
2012-01-26 15:55:45 +08:00
x9.y = sizeof(struct X9);
struct X10 x10;
typedef int X10array[sizeof(struct X10)];
Extend the ExternalASTSource interface to allow the AST source to provide the layout of records, rather than letting Clang compute the layout itself. LLDB provides the motivation for this feature: because various layout-altering attributes (packed, aligned, etc.) don't get reliably get placed into DWARF, the record layouts computed by LLDB from the reconstructed records differ from the actual layouts, and badness occurs. This interface lets the DWARF data drive layout, so we don't need the attributes preserved to get the answer write. The testing methodology for this change is fun. I've introduced a variant of -fdump-record-layouts called -fdump-record-layouts-simple that always has the simple C format and provides size/alignment/field offsets. There is also a -cc1 option -foverride-record-layout=<file> to take the output of -fdump-record-layouts-simple and parse it to produce a set of overridden layouts, which is introduced into the AST via a testing-only ExternalASTSource (called LayoutOverrideSource). Each test contains a number of records to lay out, which use various layout-changing attributes, and then dumps the layouts. We then run the test again, using the preprocessor to eliminate the layout-changing attributes entirely (which would give us different layouts for the records), but supplying the previously-computed record layouts. Finally, we diff the layouts produced from the two runs to be sure that they are identical. Note that this code makes the assumption that we don't *have* to provide the offsets of bases or virtual bases to get the layout right, because the alignment attributes don't affect it. I believe this assumption holds, but if it does not, we can extend LayoutOverrideSource to also provide base offset information. Fixes the Clang side of <rdar://problem/10169539>. llvm-svn: 149055
2012-01-26 15:55:45 +08:00
x10.y = sizeof(struct X10);
struct X11 x11;
typedef int X11array[sizeof(struct X11)];
Extend the ExternalASTSource interface to allow the AST source to provide the layout of records, rather than letting Clang compute the layout itself. LLDB provides the motivation for this feature: because various layout-altering attributes (packed, aligned, etc.) don't get reliably get placed into DWARF, the record layouts computed by LLDB from the reconstructed records differ from the actual layouts, and badness occurs. This interface lets the DWARF data drive layout, so we don't need the attributes preserved to get the answer write. The testing methodology for this change is fun. I've introduced a variant of -fdump-record-layouts called -fdump-record-layouts-simple that always has the simple C format and provides size/alignment/field offsets. There is also a -cc1 option -foverride-record-layout=<file> to take the output of -fdump-record-layouts-simple and parse it to produce a set of overridden layouts, which is introduced into the AST via a testing-only ExternalASTSource (called LayoutOverrideSource). Each test contains a number of records to lay out, which use various layout-changing attributes, and then dumps the layouts. We then run the test again, using the preprocessor to eliminate the layout-changing attributes entirely (which would give us different layouts for the records), but supplying the previously-computed record layouts. Finally, we diff the layouts produced from the two runs to be sure that they are identical. Note that this code makes the assumption that we don't *have* to provide the offsets of bases or virtual bases to get the layout right, because the alignment attributes don't affect it. I believe this assumption holds, but if it does not, we can extend LayoutOverrideSource to also provide base offset information. Fixes the Clang side of <rdar://problem/10169539>. llvm-svn: 149055
2012-01-26 15:55:45 +08:00
x11.y = sizeof(struct X11);
struct X12 x12;
x12.x = sizeof(struct X12);
struct X13 x13;
x13.x = sizeof(struct X13);
union X14 x14;
x14.x = sizeof(union X14);
struct X15 x15;
x15.x = sizeof(struct X15);
struct X16 x16;
x16.x = sizeof(struct X16);
}