It turns out that nullptr pointers to data members act differently in
function templates vs class templates. Class templates use a variable
width representation proportional to the number of fields needed to
materialize it. Function templates always use a single '0' template
parameter. However, using '0' all the time is problematic if the class
uses single or multiple inheritance. In those cases, use -1.
llvm-svn: 241251
Virtual inheritance member pointers are always relative to the vbindex,
even when the member pointer doesn't point into a virtual base. This is
corrected by adjusting the non-virtual offset backwards from the vbptr
back to the top of the most derived class. While we performed this
adjustment when manifesting member pointers as constants or when
performing conversions, we didn't perform the adjustment when mangling
them.
llvm-svn: 240453
Properly support fields that come from anonymous unions and structs
when used as template arguments for pointer to data member params.
llvm-svn: 200921
Properly determine the inheritance model when dealing with nullptr:
- If a nullptr template argument is being checked against
pointer-to-member parameter, nail down an inheritance model.
N.B. We will chose an inheritance model even if we won't ultimately
choose the template to instantiate! Cooky, right?
- Null pointer-to-datamembers have a virtual base table offset of -1,
not zero. Previously, we chose an offset of 0.
llvm-svn: 200920
Member pointers are mangled as they would be represented at runtime.
They can be a single integer literal, single decl, or a tuple with some
more numbers tossed in. With Clang today, most of those numbers will be
zero because we reject pointers to members of virtual bases.
This change required moving VTableContextBase ownership from
CodeGenVTables to ASTContext, because mangling now depends on vtable
layout.
I also hoisted the inheritance model helpers up to be inline static
methods of MSInheritanceAttr. This makes the AST code that deals with
member pointers much more readable.
MSVC doesn't appear to have stable manglings of null member pointers:
- Null data memptrs in function templates have a mangling collision with
the first field of a non-polymorphic single inheritance class.
- The mangling of null data memptrs changes if you add casts.
- Large null function memptrs in class templates crash MSVC.
Clang uses the class template mangling for null data memptrs and the
function template mangling for null function memptrs to deal with this.
Reviewers: majnemer
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2695
llvm-svn: 200857
David Majnemer