[PATCH] D121556: [randstruct] Add randomize structure layout support

[Bill Wendling via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

void added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:27
 #include "clang/AST/NonTrivialTypeVisitor.h"
+#include "clang/AST/Randstruct.h"
 #include "clang/AST/StmtCXX.h"
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> Is this include necessary?
Yes. There's a call to `randstruct::randomizeStructureLayout` below.


================
Comment at: clang/unittests/AST/RandstructTest.cpp:154-158
+#ifdef _WIN32
+  const field_names Expected = {"lettuce", "bacon", "mayonnaise", "tomato"};
+#else
+  const field_names Expected = {"mayonnaise", "bacon", "tomato", "lettuce"};
+#endif
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> Any idea what's gone wrong here? (Do we have a bug to file because these come out reversed? If so, can you add a FIXME comment here that we expect this test to change someday?)
I think it's just a case where Windows' algorithm for `std::mt19937` is subtly different than the one for Linux. I'm not sure we should worry about it too much, to be honest. As long as it produces a deterministic output on the same platform we should be fine. I think it's expected that the same compiler/environment is used during all compilation steps. (I.e., one's not going to compile a module on Windows for a kernel build on Linux.)


================
Comment at: clang/unittests/AST/RandstructTest.cpp:208-213
+// FIXME: Clang trips an assertion in the DiagnosticsEngine when the warning is
+// emitted while running under the test suite:
+// clang/lib/Frontend/TextDiagnosticPrinter.cpp:150: virtual void
+// clang::TextDiagnosticPrinter::HandleDiagnostic(clang::DiagnosticsEngine::Level,
+// const clang::Diagnostic&): Assertion `TextDiag && "UnExpected diagnostic
+// outside source file processing"' failed.
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> Is the assertion unrelated to the changes in your patch and you just happen to hit it with this test? (I get worried when tests trigger assertions.)
To be honest, I haven't looked at these tests. I inherited them from the previous code base. I'll revisit these and probably delete them if they're not useful.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D121556/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D121556