================
@@ -400,13 +400,126 @@ def VoidPtr : Type<
"cir::VoidType::get($_builder.getContext()))"> {
}
+//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+// StructType
+//
+// The base type for all RecordDecls.
+//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+def CIR_StructType : CIR_Type<"Struct", "struct",
+ [
+ DeclareTypeInterfaceMethods<DataLayoutTypeInterface>,
+ MutableType,
+ ]> {
+ let summary = "CIR struct type";
+ let description = [{
+ Each unique clang::RecordDecl is mapped to a `cir.struct` and any object in
----------------
andykaylor wrote:
Yeah. It's not a great. The same thing sort of happens in LLVM IR, but there it
makes a little bit more sense because unions, while represented as a structure,
only contain the elements necessary to account for the memory, but that's also
bad because to access any other member you end up treating it as something else.
I just looked at the incubator handling of unions, and it does represent each
member of the union as a unique member of the `cir.struct`. That is consistent
with CIR's goal of representing the logical intent of the code. I understand
why it's being done the way it is, but there is definitely potential for
confusion.
What would you think of renaming this to `cir.record`? That would introduce a
clear distinction between this and `llvm.struct` in the LLVM dialect, which
directly corresponds to llvm::StructType.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/135105
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
