stage1: Fix LLVM C ABI type resolution for small packed structs #10499
Conversation
This file contains 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
Small packed structs weren't included in this resolution so their c_abi_type would be NULL when attempting usage later, leading to a compiler crash. Resolves #10431.
|
Thanks! |
andrewrk
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 12, 2022
…s-cabi stage1: Fix LLVM C ABI type resolution for small packed structs
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
See #10431 and #9443 for context. Thus far this has been tested really only on Zig master on Linux x86_64, so I'm kinda relying on CI to highlight any potential breakage on other platforms.
Regarding tests, packed structs weren't tested at all in stage1 C ABI until this point, so I added relevant tests for both small and big packed structs, but C→Zig calls still don't support packed struct arguments so small struct cases wouldn't compile with a link to #1481, so I left them commented out for now. If this isn't right, feel free to change or request changes as you see fit; this is my first time contributing and the first time I've dug through stage1 so I might be off base on this one.
For Github's sake: resolves #10431