Basic ambiguity detection assumes that when 2 fields with the same name
have the same byte offset, it must be an unambiguous request. This is not
always correct. Consider the following code:
class empty { };
class A {
public:
[[no_unique_address]] empty e;
};
class B {
public:
int e;
};
class C: public A, public B { };
if we tried to use c.e in code, the compiler would warn of an ambiguity,
however, since A::e does not demand an unique address, it gets the same
address (and thus byte offset) of the members, making A::e and B::e have the
same address. however, "print c.e" would fail to report the ambiguity,
and would instead print it as an empty class (first path found).
The new code solves this by checking for other found_fields that have
different m_struct_path.back() (final class that the member was found
in), despite having the same byte offset.
The testcase gdb.cp/ambiguous.exp was also changed to test for this
behavior.
