-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.5k
[NFC] Address more bit-field storage sizes #140493
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
ojhunt
wants to merge
1
commit into
main
Choose a base branch
from
users/ojhunt/more-bitfield-size-fixes
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can you explain why
uint32_t
is better thanuint8_t
here?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
(Perhaps some background in the PR description would be useful).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Unfortunately I can :(
The MS ABI only packs bit-fields if they have the same storage size, e.g.
is 8 bytes.
It's a large part of why we use preferred_type and unsigned bit-fields instead of just enum bit-fields.
This PR is the continuing series of fixing the existing cases where the storage types are wrong (per MS :D), so we can then enable the warning for this behavior, so that we can then just start using enums without risking silently terrible padding with MSVC
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
By MS ABI I assume you mean mircrosoft?
I guess this is not actually a regression on non-MS compilers since the bit width means that type does not actually impact the size in the struct?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, let me check whether I'm meant to be using Microsoft or MS (I may have gotten conflated with when I should use MSVC).
This does not change behavior with anything other than the MS abi. When building with the MS abi this changes the field padding to match clang/gcc/every other ABI.
The long term reason for the change is so we can enable
-Wms-bitfield-padding
without immediately overwhelming stage2 or trunk builders with the new padding warning.Once that's enabled we can start moving to correctly typed enum bit-fields with some confidence we aren't going to regress layout under the ms abi.