[Bug c++/96105] New: GCC not consistent on whether no_unique_address array is an empty data member

[Bug c++/96105] New: GCC not consistent on whether no_unique_address array is an empty data member

[hstong at ca dot ibm.com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96105

            Bug ID: 96105
           Summary: GCC not consistent on whether no_unique_address array
                    is an empty data member
           Product: gcc
           Version: 11.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Keywords: accepts-invalid, rejects-valid, wrong-code
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: c++
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: hstong at ca dot ibm.com
  Target Milestone: ---

GCC treats an array marked `no_unique_address` and whose base element type is
an empty class as not an empty data member in `C` but does treat such an array
as an empty data member in `A` for the purposes of `B`. It appears that GCC's
handling of `B` is erroneous.

Compiler Explorer link: https://godbolt.org/z/XX5W3v

### SOURCE (<stdin>):
struct Empty {};

struct A {
  Empty emp [[no_unique_address]][3];
};

struct B : A {
  float f;
};

struct C {
  Empty emp [[no_unique_address]][3];
  float f;
};

extern char szc[sizeof(C)];
extern char szc[sizeof(float) * 2];  // GCC likes this
extern char szb[sizeof(B)];
extern char szb[sizeof(float) * 2];  // GCC does not like this


### COMPILER INVOCATION:
g++ -fsyntax-only -std=c++2a -Wall -Wextra -pedantic-errors -xc++ -


### ACTUAL OUTPUT:
<stdin>:19:13: error: conflicting declaration 'char szb [8]'
<stdin>:18:13: note: previous declaration as 'char szb [4]'


### EXPECTED OUTPUT:
(clean compile)


### COMPILER VERSION INFO (g++ -v):
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/opt/wandbox/gcc-head/bin/g++
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/opt/wandbox/gcc-head/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/11.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../source/configure --prefix=/opt/wandbox/gcc-head
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-multilib --without-ppl --without-cloog-ppl
--enable-checking=release --disable-nls --enable-lto
LDFLAGS=-Wl,-rpath,/opt/wandbox/gcc-head/lib,-rpath,/opt/wandbox/gcc-head/lib64,-rpath,/opt/wandbox/gcc-head/lib32
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 11.0.0 20200706 (experimental) (GCC)

[Bug c++/96105] GCC not consistent on whether no_unique_address array is an empty data member

[dje at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96105

David Edelsohn <dje at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1
                 CC|                            |dje at gcc dot gnu.org,
                   |                            |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
                   |                            |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2020-07-07

--- Comment #1 from David Edelsohn <dje at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Confirmed.

[Bug c++/96105] GCC not consistent on whether no_unique_address array is an empty data member

[jason at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96105

Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
           Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org      |jason at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/96105] GCC not consistent on whether no_unique_address array is an empty data member

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96105

--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Other no_unique_address ABI issues: PR96052, PR95976

[Bug c++/96105] GCC not consistent on whether no_unique_address array is an empty data member

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96105

--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
<jason@gcc.gnu.org>:

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3bb330022ce47a3e8966a9930f392e497c608f59

commit r10-8456-g3bb330022ce47a3e8966a9930f392e497c608f59
Author: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu Jul 9 15:11:12 2020 -0400

    c++: [[no_unique_address]] fixes. [PR96105]

    We were wrongly checking is_empty_class on the result of strip_array_types
    rather than the actual field type.  We weren't considering the alignment of
    the data member.  We needed to handle unions the same way as
    layout_nonempty_base_or_field.

    gcc/cp/ChangeLog:

            PR c++/96105
            PR c++/96052
            PR c++/95976
            * class.c (check_field_decls): An array of empty classes is not an
            empty data member.
            (layout_empty_base_or_field): Handle explicit alignment.
            Fix union handling.

    gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

            PR c++/96105
            PR c++/96052
            PR c++/95976
            * g++.dg/cpp2a/no_unique_address4.C: New test.
            * g++.dg/cpp2a/no_unique_address5.C: New test.
            * g++.dg/cpp2a/no_unique_address6.C: New test.

[Bug c++/96105] GCC not consistent on whether no_unique_address array is an empty data member

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96105

--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill <jason@gcc.gnu.org>:

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e47dfca5aa473e77fdff95d631dc39de87a41eec

commit r11-2014-ge47dfca5aa473e77fdff95d631dc39de87a41eec
Author: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu Jul 9 15:11:12 2020 -0400

    c++: [[no_unique_address]] fixes. [PR96105]

    We were wrongly checking is_empty_class on the result of strip_array_types
    rather than the actual field type.  We weren't considering the alignment of
    the data member.  We needed to handle unions the same way as
    layout_nonempty_base_or_field.

    gcc/cp/ChangeLog:

            PR c++/96105
            PR c++/96052
            PR c++/95976
            * class.c (check_field_decls): An array of empty classes is not an
            empty data member.
            (layout_empty_base_or_field): Handle explicit alignment.
            Fix union handling.

    gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

            PR c++/96105
            PR c++/96052
            PR c++/95976
            * g++.dg/cpp2a/no_unique_address4.C: New test.
            * g++.dg/cpp2a/no_unique_address5.C: New test.
            * g++.dg/cpp2a/no_unique_address6.C: New test.

[Bug c++/96105] GCC not consistent on whether no_unique_address array is an empty data member

[jason at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96105

Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|---                         |10.2
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED

--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed for 10.2/11.