[libcxx-commits] [libcxx] [libc++] Ensure that `std::expected` has no tail padding (PR #69673)

[Jan Kokemüller via libcxx-commits]

================
@@ -941,22 +897,90 @@ class expected {
         std::__expected_construct_unexpected_from_invoke_tag, _Func&& __f, _Args&&... __args)
         : __unex_(std::invoke(std::forward<_Func>(__f), std::forward<_Args>(__args)...)) {}
 
+    template <class _Union>
+    _LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI constexpr explicit __union_t(bool __has_val, _Union&& __other) {
+      if (__has_val)
+        std::construct_at(std::addressof(__val_), std::forward<_Union>(__other).__val_);
+      else
+        std::construct_at(std::addressof(__unex_), std::forward<_Union>(__other).__unex_);
+    }
+
     _LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI constexpr ~__union_t()
       requires(is_trivially_destructible_v<_ValueType> && is_trivially_destructible_v<_ErrorType>)
     = default;
 
-    // the expected's destructor handles this
+    // the __expected_repr's destructor handles this
     _LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI constexpr ~__union_t()
       requires(!is_trivially_destructible_v<_ValueType> || !is_trivially_destructible_v<_ErrorType>)
     {}
 
-    _LIBCPP_NO_UNIQUE_ADDRESS __empty_t __empty_;
     _LIBCPP_NO_UNIQUE_ADDRESS _ValueType __val_;
     _LIBCPP_NO_UNIQUE_ADDRESS _ErrorType __unex_;
   };
 
-  _LIBCPP_NO_UNIQUE_ADDRESS __union_t<_Tp, _Err> __union_;
-  bool __has_val_;
+  struct __expected_repr {
+    _LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI constexpr explicit __expected_repr() = delete;
----------------
jiixyj wrote:

Do you mean the constructor overload set? I thought since `__repr` needs a destructor anyways I'd create some constructors for easier use and more foolproof initialization of the `__has_val_` flag. But those are not strong feelings.

What can certainly be removed from `__repr` and union constructors are the `std::__expected_construct_in_place_from_invoke_tag`/`std::__expected_construct_unexpected_from_invoke_tag` overloads. What do you think?

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/69673