Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
* | Correctly handle zero-sized but non-empty base classes in IRGen. | John McCall | 2015-04-26 | 1 | -0/+16 |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Fixes rdar://20621065. A more elegant fix would preclude this case by defining the rules such that zero-size classes are always formally empty. I believe the only extensions which create zero-size classes right now are flexible arrays and zero-length arrays; it's not abstractly unreasonable to say that those don't count as members for the purposes of emptiness, just as zero-width bitfields don't count. But that's an ABI-affecting change and requires further discussion; in the meantime, let's not assert / miscompile. llvm-svn: 235815 | ||||
* | CHECK-LABEL-ify some code gen tests to improve diagnostic experience when ↵ | Stephen Lin | 2013-08-15 | 1 | -1/+1 |
| | | | | | | tests fail. llvm-svn: 188447 | ||||
* | Fix PR8796. | Rafael Espindola | 2010-12-29 | 1 | -0/+13 |
| | | | | | | | | The problem was that we were asserting the we never added an empty class to the same offset twice. This is not true for unions, where two members, empty or not, can have the some offset. llvm-svn: 122633 | ||||
* | Add test case that I forgot to check in. | Anders Carlsson | 2010-05-03 | 1 | -0/+69 |
llvm-svn: 102905 |