The code incorrectly assumed that full-sized bitfields are located at a
This fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44601
@aprantl / @JDevlieghere you folks might want to check this out from a backwards compatibility/validation perspective.
Let's watch the LLDB / GDB bots carefully after landing this, but it seems to make sense to me.
This line definitely looks good.
This makes sense, I was surprised we did not catch this on the lldb side but it looks like we do ok with this case because it appears like a regular field.
I do not have commit access. Please commit this for me.