r179251 - [libclang] Expose record layout info via new libclang functions:

[Matt Beaumont-Gay]

Thanks, r184751.

On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Argyrios Kyrtzidis <akyrtzi at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 21, 2013, at 5:07 PM, Matt Beaumont-Gay <matthewbg at google.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Argyrios Kyrtzidis <akyrtzi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> +struct Test2 {
>>> +  struct {
>>> +    struct {
>>> +//CHECK64: FieldDecl=foo:[[@LINE+1]]:11 (Definition) [type=int]
>>> [typekind=Int] [sizeof=4] [alignof=4] [offsetof=0]
>>> +      int foo;
>>> +    };
>>> +    struct {
>>> +//CHECK64: FieldDecl=bar:[[@LINE+1]]:11 (Definition) [type=int]
>>> [typekind=Int] [sizeof=4] [alignof=4] [offsetof=32]
>>> +      int bar;
>>> +    };
>>> +    struct {
>>> +        struct {
>>> +//CHECK64: FieldDecl=foobar:[[@LINE+1]]:15 (Definition) [type=int]
>>> [typekind=Int] [sizeof=4] [alignof=4] [offsetof=64]
>>> +          int foobar;
>>> +        };
>>> +    };
>>> +    struct inner {
>>> +        struct {
>>> +//CHECK64: FieldDecl=mybar:[[@LINE+1]]:15 (Definition) [type=int]
>>> [typekind=Int] [sizeof=4] [alignof=4] [offsetof=0]
>>> +          int mybar;
>>> +        };
>>> +//CHECK64: FieldDecl=mole:[[@LINE+1]]:7 (Definition) [type=struct inner]
>>> [typekind=Unexposed] [sizeof=4] [alignof=4] [offsetof=96]
>>> +    } mole;
>>> +  };
>>> +};
>>>
>>>
>>> This struct is invalid:
>>> tools/clang/test/Index/print-type-size.cpp:77:12: error: types cannot
>>> be declared in an anonymous struct
>>>   struct inner {
>>>          ^
>>>
>>> I noticed because it trips an assert I added to
>>> ASTContext::getASTRecordLayout (asserting that the decl is valid). How
>>> deeply do you care about this particular part of the test case? Can I
>>> remove it, or is there a particular fix I should apply?
>>>
>>> I have a patch which adds some invalid-decl checks to
>>> clang_Type_getOffsetOf, but it breaks all of the existing test cases
>>> which explicitly exercise invalid structs (not to mention Test2
>>> above). It's obviously important that we don't crash on those inputs,
>>> but I'm not sure I see the value of checking for any particular
>>> output.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>>
>>> I suggest adding the invalid-decl checks and leaving an invalid struct in
>>> the test to make sure libclang does not hit the assertion; the rest can be
>>> turned into valid decls so that the checks can work.
>>
>> Great. I've taken the proverbial hatchet to the CHECKs in that test
>> and added a new little case that resembles the original crasher; patch
>> attached, please review.
>
> LGTM.
>
>>
>> -Matt
>> <c-index-record-layout.patch>
>