I wouldn't recommend writing code like the testcase; a function
parameter isn't atomic, so using an atomic type doesn't really make
sense. But it's valid, so clang shouldn't crash on it.
The code was assuming hasAggregateEvaluationKind(Ty) implies Ty is a
RecordType, which isn't true. Just use isRecordType() instead.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102015
The ability to specify alignment was recently added, and it's an
important property which we should ensure is set as expected by
Clang. (Especially before making further changes to Clang's code in
this area.) But, because it's on the end of the lines, the existing
tests all ignore it.
Therefore, update all the tests to also verify the expected alignment
for atomicrmw and cmpxchg. While I was in there, I also updated uses
of 'load atomic' and 'store atomic', and added the memory ordering,
where that was missing.
consider the _<width> variants as well, which we'll see if we're
performing the type checking in a template instantiation where the
call expression itself was originally not type-dependent. Fixes
PR11411.
llvm-svn: 145248
