fix(formatter): disable layout assertions on some 32-bit platforms

[Dunqing]

close: #15984. Same as #15984

[Dunqing]

• perf(formatter): skip propagate the most expanded variant of best_fitting #16626
• fix(formatter): disable layout assertions on some 32-bit platforms #16625 👈 (View in Graphite)
• main

---

How to use the Graphite Merge Queue

Add either label to this PR to merge it via the merge queue:

• 0-merge - adds this PR to the back of the merge queue
• hotfix - for urgent hot fixes, skip the queue and merge this PR next

You must have a Graphite account in order to use the merge queue. Sign up using this link.

An organization admin has enabled the Graphite Merge Queue in this repository.

Please do not merge from GitHub as this will restart CI on PRs being processed by the merge queue.

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This PR fixes compilation failures on 32-bit platforms where u64 has 4-byte alignment (such as x86) by conditionally disabling layout assertions that would fail on those platforms. The fix aligns with the existing pattern used throughout the codebase in generated assertion files.

Key changes:

• Modified two compile-time assertion blocks to only run on 32-bit platforms with 8-byte u64 alignment or WASM
• This prevents assertion failures on 32-bit platforms with 4-byte u64 alignment where struct layout differs

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[codspeed-hq]

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #16625 will not alter performance

_{Comparing 12-09-fix_formatter_disable_layout_assertions_on_some_32-bit_platforms (152f6f3) with main (feffe48)¹}

Summary

✅ 38 untouched
⏩ 7 skipped²

Footnotes

1. No successful run was found on main (6f3aaba) during the generation of this report, so feffe48 was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩

2. 7 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports. ↩

[leaysgur]

• Copilot review seems valid? 👀
• nits: IIRC, <> for <link> is only needed inside /// comment for Rust

[Dunqing]

• Copilot review seems valid? 👀
• nits: IIRC, <> for <link> is only needed inside /// comment for Rust

Thank you for reminding!

[leaysgur]

Merge activity

• Dec 9, 6:03 AM UTC: The merge label '0-merge' was detected. This PR will be added to the Graphite merge queue once it meets the requirements.
• Dec 9, 6:03 AM UTC: leaysgur added this pull request to the Graphite merge queue.
• Dec 9, 6:10 AM UTC: Merged by the Graphite merge queue.