erichkeane 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.
OH! I see! I misremembered how this works. Disregard the above then. 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
