rjmccall wrote: > > > Let's just increase to 9 bits. > > > Have you checked whether the size of `Stmt` or `Expr` changes when you do > > > this? > > > > > > @rjmccall I've changed it to 9 bits and checked that `Stmt` and `Expr` are > > still 8 bytes and 16 bytes resp.. > > I think checking just those two isn't sufficient, as this is used as a 'base' > type for a few other types. We probably need to ensure that other types that > use bitfields don't have this problem as well. Basically any of the other > bitfield types here that implicitly use `StmtBitfields` in the mask. > `NullStmt`, `CompoundStmt`, and `LabelStmt`, (and every other use of > `NumStmtBits`) are all ones that need checking.
The way this works is that all of these class-specific bitfields are union'ed into a single field in `Stmt`, so actually the layout of the subclasses won't change as long as the size of `Stmt` doesn't. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/120341 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
