rsmith added a comment.
For what it's worth, I think the right way to handle this in C is to properly
implement the "compatible types" rule instead of trying to invent something
ODR-ish: in C, struct definitions in different translation units are different
types, but if they're structurally equivalent then they're compatible and you
can implicitly pass an object of some type to a function accepting a compatible
type. This would mean that we could have multiple, different types with the
same name, and we'd need name lookup to deduplicate compatible types, but we
wouldn't need to do any cross-module ODR-like struct merging.
But assuming we want to keep the current ODR-in-C approach, this looks OK.
There might be some places that assume the lexical and semantic `DeclContext`
for a C `FieldDecl` are the same (etc) but I don't think there's a good way to
find such things other than by testing this patch broadly.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Serialization/ASTReaderDecl.cpp:832
+ RD->setCompleteDefinition(false);
+ Reader.mergeDefinitionVisibility(OldDef, RD);
+ } else {
----------------
vsapsai wrote:
> Here is the perfect place to compare if `RD` and `OldDef` are equivalent and
> emit diagnostic if they are not. I've tried `StructuralEquivalenceContext`
> for this purpose but it compares canonical decls which doesn't work in this
> case. I think the best approach for this task would be ODR hash comparison
> proposed in https://reviews.llvm.org/D71734 It will need some tweaks to work
> with the current patch but overall the plan is to use ODR hash instead of any
> other decl comparison.
Just a minor note: it's not safe to emit diagnostics from here in general; in
particular, emitting a diagnostic that refers to a declaration can trigger
deserialization, which can reenter the AST reader in unfortunate ways and
crash. But we can make a note to do the structural equivalence check here and
then actually perform the check when we finish deserialization (with the other
merging checks).
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D106994/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D106994
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
