Repository navigation
Include nested struct tail padding - #1785
Open
dajiaohuang wants to merge 3 commits into
Open
dajiaohuang wants to merge 3 commits into
dajiaohuang wants to merge 3 commits into
Conversation
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
The recursive layout emitter computes trailing padding as the type's size minus the last field's absolute end position. For a nested struct with nonzero base offset this omits the nested struct's tail padding from the field layout. Include base in the extent and add a regression using a zero-length array field that leaves struct tail padding.
Review update: the unrelated generic-instantiation change and its fixture were removed through a normal follow-up commit; #1764 tracks that fix separately. Current-head validation: go test ./cmd/structlayout (one test) passed; git diff --check passed. Prior validation text above is historical unless repeated here.