-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15.1k
[CodeGen][CFI] Generalize transparent union parameters #158193
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
Merged
vitalybuka
merged 13 commits into
main
from
users/vitalybuka/spr/codegencfi-generalize-transparent-union-parameters
Sep 13, 2025
Merged
Changes from 11 commits
Commits
Show all changes
13 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
7170e27
[𝘀𝗽𝗿] initial version
vitalybuka 59e3ced
[𝘀𝗽𝗿] changes to main this commit is based on
vitalybuka 2eadc0d
remove dead code
vitalybuka 9cdb7a3
[𝘀𝗽𝗿] changes introduced through rebase
vitalybuka 5df6b7c
newline
vitalybuka e96fc1f
[𝘀𝗽𝗿] changes introduced through rebase
vitalybuka cdcdb9d
rebase
vitalybuka 8ac6da8
[𝘀𝗽𝗿] changes introduced through rebase
vitalybuka e8103da
spaces
vitalybuka 8864b35
[𝘀𝗽𝗿] changes introduced through rebase
vitalybuka edd5464
TYPE4
vitalybuka 2166ce8
[𝘀𝗽𝗿] changes introduced through rebase
lntue 01eaf4a
rebase
vitalybuka 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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
Was it intentional to use a range based for loop here only to unconditionally return in the body?
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.
The meaning is as intended, I think. Maybe something like
if (!UD->fields().empty()) return UD->fields()[0];would be better style.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.
Agreed, an if statement would signal intent better.