eddyz87 added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CGExpr.cpp:3700 + return false; + if (auto *BaseDecl = E->getType()->getPointeeType()->getAsRecordDecl()) + return hasBPFPreserveStaticOffset(BaseDecl); ---------------- erichkeane wrote: > eddyz87 wrote: > > erichkeane wrote: > > > getPointeeType can also return nullptr, so unless you have a test > > > elsewhere to ensure it isn't, you likely have to do a little more work > > > here (and if so, I'd need an assert). > > Is it? I actually double-checked this before pushing an update, clangd > > jumps to the following definition: > > > > ``` > > lang=cpp > > QualType Type::getPointeeType() const { > > if (const auto *PT = getAs<PointerType>()) > > return PT->getPointeeType(); > > ... > > return {}; > > } > > ``` > > > > The `getAsRecordDecl()` can return null indeed, but that null is checked. > More correctly, it returns an empty `QualType`. The `operator->` on that > will cause a `nullptr`, causing the call to `Type::getAsRecordDecl` to have a > `nullptr` `this`. Oh, right, I'll add an additional check, thank you. ================ Comment at: llvm/test/CodeGen/BPF/preserve-static-offset/load-align.ll:61 +!0 = !{i32 1, !"wchar_size", i32 4} +!1 = !{!"clang version 18.0.0 (/home/eddy/work/llvm-project/clang c899a1ca75d0f1b559204eff79a2578d2cafc7ab)"} +!2 = !{!3, !4, i64 128} ---------------- erichkeane wrote: > eddyz87 wrote: > > erichkeane wrote: > > > Are we sure we want to do something like this? It seems this both > > > depends on YOUR computer AND us never releasing Clang 18. > > Are you sure this would be an issue? > > The specific line is not a part of a CHECK and I tried the following > > command using my system's llvm 16 opt: > > > > ``` > > opt -O2 -mtriple=bpf-pc-linux -S -o - load-align.ll > > ``` > > > > And module was loaded / processed w/o any issues. > > In general grepping shows that people don't usually mask these in tests: > > > > ``` > > $ cd llvm/test/CodeGen/ > > $ ag '{!"clang version' | wc -l > > 452 > > ``` > I don't write LLVM tests ever, so I'm not sure. It just seems odd to provide > that much irrelevant info, perhaps one of hte LLVM reviewers can comment. > Also, look at those ~450 and see what they contain? > Also, look at those ~450 and see what they contain? Same random clang versions: ``` $ ag '{!"clang version' | head X86/debug-loclists.ll:129:!6 = !{!"clang version 10.0.0 (trunk 374581) (llvm/trunk 374579)"} X86/dbg-combine.ll:84:!11 = !{!"clang version 3.7.0 (trunk 227074)"} X86/debuginfo-locations-dce.ll:46:!6 = !{!"clang version 8.0.0 (trunk 339665)"} X86/pr31242.ll:48:!5 = !{!"clang version 4.0.0 (trunk 288844)"} X86/catchpad-regmask.ll:140:!1 = !{!"clang version 3.8.0 "} X86/debug-nodebug-crash.ll:48:!5 = !{!"clang version 4.0.0"} X86/limit-split-cost.mir:64: !2 = !{!"clang version 7.0.0 (trunk 335057)"} X86/swap.ll:169:!1 = !{!"clang version 9.0.0 (trunk 352631) (llvm/trunk 352632)"} X86/dwarf-aranges-available-externally.ll:65:!16 = !{!"clang version 15.0.0 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project.git 2f52a868225755ebfa5242992d3a650ac6aadce7)"} X86/label-annotation.ll:96:!7 = !{!"clang version 9.0.0 (g...@github.com:llvm/llvm-project.git 7f9a008a2db285aca57bfa0c09858c9527a7aa98)"} ``` Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D133361/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D133361 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits