r247618 - C11 _Bool bitfield diagnostic
Nico Weber via cfe-commits
cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org
Fri Sep 18 20:49:47 PDT 2015
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk>
wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Nico Weber via cfe-commits <
>> cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 5:50 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Nico Weber <thakis at chromium.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> With this patch, we warn on `bool a : 4;`, yet we don't warn on `bool
>>>>> b` (which has 8 bits storage, 1 bit value). Warning on `bool b` is silly of
>>>>> course, but why is warning on `bool a : 4` useful? That's like 50% more
>>>>> storage efficient than `bool b` ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> It's possible that this is a good warning for some reason, but I don't
>>>>> quite see why yet.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why would we warn on "unsigned n : 57;"? The bit-field is wider than
>>>> necessary, and we have no idea what the programmer was trying to do
>>>>
>>>
>>> Warning on this kind of makes sense to me, as the field is wider than
>>> the default width of int. (Not warning on that doesn't seem terrible to me
>>> either though.)
>>>
>>> I'm only confused about the bool case with bitfield sizes < 8 I think.
>>> We warn that the bitfield is wider than the value size, even though it's
>>> smaller than the default storage size, and we don't warn on regular bools.
>>>
>>> To get an idea how often this warning fires, I ran it on a large-ish
>>> open source codebase I had flying around. The only place it fired on is one
>>> header in protobuf (extension_set.h). I looked at the history of that file,
>>> and it had a struct that used to look like
>>>
>>> struct Extension {
>>> SomeEnum e;
>>> bool a;
>>> bool b;
>>> bool c;
>>> int d;
>>> // ...some more stuff...
>>> };
>>>
>>> Someone then added another field to this and for some reason decided to
>>> do it like so:
>>>
>>> struct Extension {
>>> SomeEnum e;
>>> bool a;
>>> bool b1 : 4;
>>> bool b2 : 4;
>>> bool c;
>>> int d;
>>> // ...some more stuff...
>>> };
>>>
>>> Neither the commit message nor the review discussion mention the
>>> bitfield at all as far as I can tell. Now, given that this isn't a small
>>> struct and it has a bunch of normal bools, I don't know why they added the
>>> new field as bitfield while this wasn't deemed necessary for the existing
>>> bools. My best guess is that that they didn't want to add 3 bytes of
>>> padding (due to the int field), which seems like a decent reason.
>>>
>>> Had the warning been in place when this code got written, I suppose they
>>> had used ": 1" instead. Does this make this code much better? It doesn't
>>> seem like it to me. So after doing a warning quality eval, I'd suggest to
>>> not emit the warning for bool bitfields if the bitfield size is < 8. (But
>>> since the warning fires only very rarely, I don't feel very strongly about
>>> this.)
>>>
>>
>> I agree it doesn't make the code /much/ better. But if I were reading
>> that, I would certainly pause for a few moments wondering what the author
>> was thinking. I also don't feel especially strongly about this, but I don't
>> see a good rationale for warning on 'bool : 9' but not on 'bool : 5'.
>>
>
> I'm coming around to the opinion that we shouldn't give this warning on
> bool at all -- the point of the warning is to point out that an 'unsigned :
> 40;' bitfield can't hold 2**40 - 1, and values of that size will be
> truncated. There is no corresponding problematic case for bool, so we have
> a much weaker justification for warning in this case -- we have no idea
> what the user was trying to achieve, but we do not have a signal that their
> code is wrong.
>
> Thoughts?
>
Makes sense to me :-) What about `bool : 16`?
>
> , but it doesn't seem likely they got that effect. Would you be more
>>>> convinced if we amended the diagnostic to provide a fixit suggesting using
>>>> an anonymous bit-field to insert padding?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Isn't the Right Fix (tm) to make bool bitfields 1 wide and rely on the
>>> compiler to figure out padding?
>>>
>>
>> It depends; maybe the intent is to be compatible with some on-disk
>> format, and the explicit padding is important:
>>
>> struct X {
>> int n : 3;
>> bool b : 3;
>> int n : 2;
>> };
>>
>> Changing the bool bit-field to 1 bit without inserting an anonymous
>> bit-field would change the struct layout.
>>
>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:06 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 7:07 PM, Rachel Craik <rcraik at ca.ibm.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As of DR262, the C standard clarified that the width of a bit-field
>>>>>>> can not exceed that of the specified type, and this change was primarily to
>>>>>>> ensure that Clang correctly enforced this part of the standard. Looking at
>>>>>>> the C++11 standard again, it states that although the specified width of a
>>>>>>> bit-field may exceed the number of bits in the *object
>>>>>>> representation* (which includes padding bits) of the specified
>>>>>>> type, the extra bits will not take any part in the bit-field's *value
>>>>>>> representation*.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Taking this into account, it seems that the correct way to validate
>>>>>>> the width of a bit-field (ignoring the special case of MS in C mode) would
>>>>>>> be to use getIntWidth in C mode, and getTypeSize in C++ mode.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would be happy create a patch to make this change tomorrow if
>>>>>>> people are in agreement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> David Majnemer has already landed a couple of changes to fix this up,
>>>>>> so hopefully that won't be necessary. Thanks for working on this!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rachel
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [image: Inactive hide details for Nico Weber ---09/14/2015 09:53:25
>>>>>>> PM---On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafo]Nico
>>>>>>> Weber ---09/14/2015 09:53:25 PM---On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Richard
>>>>>>> Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Nico Weber <thakis at chromium.org>
>>>>>>> To: Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk>
>>>>>>> Cc: Rachel Craik/Toronto/IBM at IBMCA, cfe-commits <
>>>>>>> cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org>
>>>>>>> Date: 09/14/2015 09:53 PM
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: r247618 - C11 _Bool bitfield diagnostic
>>>>>>> Sent by: thakis at google.com
>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Richard Smith <
>>>>>>> *richard at metafoo.co.uk* <richard at metafoo.co.uk>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Nico Weber via cfe-commits <
>>>>>>> *cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org* <cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>> This also fires for bool in C++ files, even though the commit
>>>>>>> message saying C11 and _Bool. Given the test changes, I suppose that's
>>>>>>> intentional? This fires a lot on existing code, for example protobuf:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ../../third_party/protobuf/src/google/protobuf/extension_set.h:465:10:
>>>>>>> error: width of bit-field 'is_cleared' (4 bits) exceeds the width of its
>>>>>>> type; value will be truncated to 1 bit [-Werror,-Wbitfield-width]
>>>>>>> bool is_cleared : 4;
>>>>>>> ^
>>>>>>> ../../third_party/protobuf/src/google/protobuf/extension_set.h:472:10:
>>>>>>> error: width of bit-field 'is_lazy' (4 bits) exceeds the width of its type;
>>>>>>> value will be truncated to 1 bit [-Werror,-Wbitfield-width]
>>>>>>> bool is_lazy : 4;
>>>>>>> ^
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is this expected? Is this a behavior change, or did the
>>>>>>> truncation happen previously and it's now just getting warned on?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The code previously assumed that MSVC used the C rules here; it
>>>>>>> appears that's not true in all cases.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This was on a Mac bot…
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can we just remove the " || IsMsStruct
>>>>>>> || Context.getTargetInfo().getCXXABI().isMicrosoft()"? Is there some reason
>>>>>>> we need to prohibit overwide bitfields for MS bitfield layout, rather than
>>>>>>> just warning on them? (Does record layout fail somehow?)
>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Rachel Craik via cfe-commits <
>>>>>>> *cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org* <cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Author: rcraik
>>>>>>> Date: Mon Sep 14 16:27:36 2015
>>>>>>> New Revision: 247618
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> URL:
>>>>>>> *http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=247618&view=rev*
>>>>>>> <http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=247618&view=rev>
>>>>>>> Log:
>>>>>>> C11 _Bool bitfield diagnostic
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Summary: Implement DR262 (for C). This patch will mainly
>>>>>>> affect bitfields of type _Bool
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Reviewers: fraggamuffin, rsmith
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Subscribers: hubert.reinterpretcast, cfe-commits
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Differential Revision: *http://reviews.llvm.org/D10018*
>>>>>>> <http://reviews.llvm.org/D10018>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Modified:
>>>>>>> cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticGroups.td
>>>>>>> cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td
>>>>>>> cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp
>>>>>>> cfe/trunk/test/CodeGen/bitfield-2.c
>>>>>>> cfe/trunk/test/CodeGenCXX/warn-padded-packed.cpp
>>>>>>> cfe/trunk/test/Misc/warning-flags.c
>>>>>>> cfe/trunk/test/Sema/bitfield.c
>>>>>>> cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/bitfield-layout.cpp
>>>>>>> cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/constant-expression-cxx11.cpp
>>>>>>> cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/constant-expression-cxx1y.cpp
>>>>>>> cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/ms_wide_bitfield.cpp
>>>>>>> cfe/trunk/test/SemaObjC/class-bitfield.m
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Modified: cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticGroups.td
>>>>>>> URL:
>>>>>>> *http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticGroups.td?rev=247618&r1=247617&r2=247618&view=diff*
>>>>>>> <http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticGroups.td?rev=247618&r1=247617&r2=247618&view=diff>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ==============================================================================
>>>>>>> --- cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticGroups.td
>>>>>>> (original)
>>>>>>> +++ cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticGroups.td Mon
>>>>>>> Sep 14 16:27:36 2015
>>>>>>> @@ -32,6 +32,7 @@ def AutoImport : DiagGroup<"auto-import"
>>>>>>> def GNUBinaryLiteral : DiagGroup<"gnu-binary-literal">;
>>>>>>> def GNUCompoundLiteralInitializer :
>>>>>>> DiagGroup<"gnu-compound-literal-initializer">;
>>>>>>> def BitFieldConstantConversion :
>>>>>>> DiagGroup<"bitfield-constant-conversion">;
>>>>>>> +def BitFieldWidth : DiagGroup<"bitfield-width">;
>>>>>>> def ConstantConversion :
>>>>>>> DiagGroup<"constant-conversion", [
>>>>>>> BitFieldConstantConversion ] >;
>>>>>>> def LiteralConversion : DiagGroup<"literal-conversion">;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Modified:
>>>>>>> cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td
>>>>>>> URL:
>>>>>>> *http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td?rev=247618&r1=247617&r2=247618&view=diff*
>>>>>>> <http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td?rev=247618&r1=247617&r2=247618&view=diff>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ==============================================================================
>>>>>>> --- cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td
>>>>>>> (original)
>>>>>>> +++ cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td
>>>>>>> Mon Sep 14 16:27:36 2015
>>>>>>> @@ -4314,20 +4314,21 @@ def
>>>>>>> err_bitfield_has_negative_width : Er
>>>>>>> def err_anon_bitfield_has_negative_width : Error<
>>>>>>> "anonymous bit-field has negative width (%0)">;
>>>>>>> def err_bitfield_has_zero_width : Error<"named bit-field
>>>>>>> %0 has zero width">;
>>>>>>> -def err_bitfield_width_exceeds_type_size : Error<
>>>>>>> - "size of bit-field %0 (%1 bits) exceeds size of its
>>>>>>> type (%2 bits)">;
>>>>>>> -def err_anon_bitfield_width_exceeds_type_size : Error<
>>>>>>> - "size of anonymous bit-field (%0 bits) exceeds size of
>>>>>>> its type (%1 bits)">;
>>>>>>> +def err_bitfield_width_exceeds_type_width : Error<
>>>>>>> + "width of bit-field %0 (%1 bits) exceeds width of its
>>>>>>> type (%2 bit%s2)">;
>>>>>>> +def err_anon_bitfield_width_exceeds_type_width : Error<
>>>>>>> + "width of anonymous bit-field (%0 bits) exceeds width
>>>>>>> of its type "
>>>>>>> + "(%1 bit%s1)">;
>>>>>>> def err_incorrect_number_of_vector_initializers : Error<
>>>>>>> "number of elements must be either one or match the
>>>>>>> size of the vector">;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> // Used by C++ which allows bit-fields that are wider
>>>>>>> than the type.
>>>>>>> -def warn_bitfield_width_exceeds_type_size: Warning<
>>>>>>> - "size of bit-field %0 (%1 bits) exceeds the size of its
>>>>>>> type; value will be "
>>>>>>> - "truncated to %2 bits">;
>>>>>>> -def warn_anon_bitfield_width_exceeds_type_size : Warning<
>>>>>>> - "size of anonymous bit-field (%0 bits) exceeds size of
>>>>>>> its type; value will "
>>>>>>> - "be truncated to %1 bits">;
>>>>>>> +def warn_bitfield_width_exceeds_type_width: Warning<
>>>>>>> + "width of bit-field %0 (%1 bits) exceeds the width of
>>>>>>> its type; value will "
>>>>>>> + "be truncated to %2 bit%s2">, InGroup<BitFieldWidth>;
>>>>>>> +def warn_anon_bitfield_width_exceeds_type_width : Warning<
>>>>>>> + "width of anonymous bit-field (%0 bits) exceeds width
>>>>>>> of its type; value "
>>>>>>> + "will be truncated to %1 bit%s1">,
>>>>>>> InGroup<BitFieldWidth>;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> def warn_missing_braces : Warning<
>>>>>>> "suggest braces around initialization of subobject">,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Modified: cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp
>>>>>>> URL:
>>>>>>> *http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp?rev=247618&r1=247617&r2=247618&view=diff*
>>>>>>> <http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp?rev=247618&r1=247617&r2=247618&view=diff>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ==============================================================================
>>>>>>> --- cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp (original)
>>>>>>> +++ cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp Mon Sep 14 16:27:36
>>>>>>> 2015
>>>>>>> @@ -12625,26 +12625,26 @@ ExprResult
>>>>>>> Sema::VerifyBitField(SourceLo
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> if (!FieldTy->isDependentType()) {
>>>>>>> - uint64_t TypeSize = Context.getTypeSize(FieldTy);
>>>>>>> - if (Value.getZExtValue() > TypeSize) {
>>>>>>> + uint64_t TypeWidth = Context.getIntWidth(FieldTy);
>>>>>>> + if (Value.ugt(TypeWidth)) {
>>>>>>> if (!getLangOpts().CPlusPlus || IsMsStruct ||
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Context.getTargetInfo().getCXXABI().isMicrosoft()) {
>>>>>>> if (FieldName)
>>>>>>> - return Diag(FieldLoc,
>>>>>>> diag::err_bitfield_width_exceeds_type_size)
>>>>>>> + return Diag(FieldLoc,
>>>>>>> diag::err_bitfield_width_exceeds_type_width)
>>>>>>> << FieldName << (unsigned)Value.getZExtValue()
>>>>>>> - << (unsigned)TypeSize;
>>>>>>> + << (unsigned)TypeWidth;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - return Diag(FieldLoc,
>>>>>>> diag::err_anon_bitfield_width_exceeds_type_size)
>>>>>>> - << (unsigned)Value.getZExtValue() <<
>>>>>>> (unsigned)TypeSize;
>>>>>>> + return Diag(FieldLoc,
>>>>>>> diag::err_anon_bitfield_width_exceeds_type_width)
>>>>>>> + << (unsigned)Value.getZExtValue() <<
>>>>>>> (unsigned)TypeWidth;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> if (FieldName)
>>>>>>> - Diag(FieldLoc,
>>>>>>> diag::warn_bitfield_width_exceeds_type_size)
>>>>>>> + Diag(FieldLoc,
>>>>>>> diag::warn_bitfield_width_exceeds_type_width)
>>>>>>> << FieldName << (unsigned)Value.getZExtValue()
>>>>>>> - << (unsigned)TypeSize;
>>>>>>> + << (unsigned)TypeWidth;
>>>>>>> else
>>>>>>> - Diag(FieldLoc,
>>>>>>> diag::warn_anon_bitfield_width_exceeds_type_size)
>>>>>>> - << (unsigned)Value.getZExtValue() <<
>>>>>>> (unsigned)TypeSize;
>>>>>>> + Diag(FieldLoc,
>>>>>>> diag::warn_anon_bitfield_width_exceeds_type_width)
>>>>>>> + << (unsigned)Value.getZExtValue() <<
>>>>>>> (unsigned)TypeWidth;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Modified: cfe/trunk/test/CodeGen/bitfield-2.c
>>>>>>> URL:
>>>>>>> *http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/CodeGen/bitfield-2.c?rev=247618&r1=247617&r2=247618&view=diff*
>>>>>>> <http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/CodeGen/bitfield-2.c?rev=247618&r1=247617&r2=247618&view=diff>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ==============================================================================
>>>>>>> --- cfe/trunk/test/CodeGen/bitfield-2.c (original)
>>>>>>> +++ cfe/trunk/test/CodeGen/bitfield-2.c Mon Sep 14
>>>>>>> 16:27:36 2015
>>>>>>> @@ -237,7 +237,7 @@ unsigned long long test_5() {
>>>>>>> /***/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> struct s6 {
>>>>>>> - _Bool f0 : 2;
>>>>>>> + unsigned f0 : 2;
>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> struct s6 g6 = { 0xF };
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Modified: cfe/trunk/test/CodeGenCXX/warn-padded-packed.cpp
>>>>>>> URL:
>>>>>>> *http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/CodeGenCXX/warn-padded-packed.cpp?rev=247618&r1=247617&r2=247618&view=diff*
>>>>>>> <http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/CodeGenCXX/warn-padded-packed.cpp?rev=247618&r1=247617&r2=247618&view=diff>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ==============================================================================
>>>>>>> --- cfe/trunk/test/CodeGenCXX/warn-padded-packed.cpp
>>>>>>> (original)
>>>>>>> +++ cfe/trunk/test/CodeGenCXX/warn-padded-packed.cpp Mon
>>>>>>> Sep 14 16:27:36 2015
>>>>>>> @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ struct S12 {
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> struct S13 { // expected-warning {{padding size of 'S13'
>>>>>>> with 6 bits to alignment boundary}}
>>>>>>> char c;
>>>>>>> - bool b : 10; // expected-warning {{size of bit-field
>>>>>>> 'b' (10 bits) exceeds the size of its type}}
>>>>>>> + bool b : 10; // expected-warning {{width of bit-field
>>>>>>> 'b' (10 bits) exceeds the width of its type}}
>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> // The warnings are emitted when the layout of the
>>>>>>> structs is computed, so we have to use them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Modified: cfe/trunk/test/Misc/warning-flags.c
>>>>>>> URL:
>>>>>>> *http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/Misc/warning-flags.c?rev=247618&r1=247617&r2=247618&view=diff*
>>>>>>> <http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/Misc/warning-flags.c?rev=247618&r1=247617&r2=247618&view=diff>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ==============================================================================
>>>>>>> --- cfe/trunk/test/Misc/warning-flags.c (original)
>>>>>>> +++ cfe/trunk/test/Misc/warning-flags.c Mon Sep 14
>>>>>>> 16:27:36 2015
>>>>>>> @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ This test serves two purposes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The list of warnings below should NEVER grow. It should
>>>>>>> gradually shrink to 0.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -CHECK: Warnings without flags (92):
>>>>>>> +CHECK: Warnings without flags (90):
>>>>>>> CHECK-NEXT: ext_excess_initializers
>>>>>>> CHECK-NEXT:
>>>>>>> ext_excess_initializers_in_char_array_initializer
>>>>>>> CHECK-NEXT: ext_expected_semi_decl_list
>>>>>>> @@ -44,10 +44,8 @@ CHECK-NEXT: pp_pragma_once_in_main_fil
>>>>>>> CHECK-NEXT: pp_pragma_sysheader_in_main_file
>>>>>>> CHECK-NEXT: w_asm_qualifier_ignored
>>>>>>> CHECK-NEXT: warn_accessor_property_type_mismatch
>>>>>>> -CHECK-NEXT: warn_anon_bitfield_width_exceeds_type_size
>>>>>>> CHECK-NEXT: warn_arcmt_nsalloc_realloc
>>>>>>> CHECK-NEXT: warn_asm_label_on_auto_decl
>>>>>>> -CHECK-NEXT: warn_bitfield_width_exceeds_type_size
>>>>>>> CHECK-NEXT: warn_c_kext
>>>>>>> CHECK-NEXT:
>>>>>>> warn_call_to_pure_virtual_member_function_from_ctor_dtor
>>>>>>> CHECK-NEXT: warn_call_wrong_number_of_arguments
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Modified: cfe/trunk/test/Sema/bitfield.c
>>>>>>> URL:
>>>>>>> *http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/Sema/bitfield.c?rev=247618&r1=247617&r2=247618&view=diff*
>>>>>>> <http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/Sema/bitfield.c?rev=247618&r1=247617&r2=247618&view=diff>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ==============================================================================
>>>>>>> --- cfe/trunk/test/Sema/bitfield.c (original)
>>>>>>> +++ cfe/trunk/test/Sema/bitfield.c Mon Sep 14 16:27:36 2015
>>>>>>> @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ struct a {
>>>>>>> int a : -1; // expected-error{{bit-field 'a' has
>>>>>>> negative width}}
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> // rdar://6081627
>>>>>>> - int b : 33; // expected-error{{size of bit-field 'b'
>>>>>>> (33 bits) exceeds size of its type (32 bits)}}
>>>>>>> + int b : 33; // expected-error{{width of bit-field 'b'
>>>>>>> (33 bits) exceeds width of its type (32 bits)}}
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int c : (1 + 0.25); // expected-error{{expression is
>>>>>>> not an integer constant expression}}
>>>>>>> int d : (int)(1 + 0.25);
>>>>>>> @@ -22,9 +22,12 @@ struct a {
>>>>>>> int g : (_Bool)1;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> // PR4017
>>>>>>> - char : 10; // expected-error {{size of anonymous
>>>>>>> bit-field (10 bits) exceeds size of its type (8 bits)}}
>>>>>>> + char : 10; // expected-error {{width of anonymous
>>>>>>> bit-field (10 bits) exceeds width of its type (8 bits)}}
>>>>>>> unsigned : -2; // expected-error {{anonymous bit-field
>>>>>>> has negative width (-2)}}
>>>>>>> float : 12; // expected-error {{anonymous bit-field
>>>>>>> has non-integral type 'float'}}
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + _Bool : 2; // expected-error {{width of anonymous
>>>>>>> bit-field (2 bits) exceeds width of its type (1 bit)}}
>>>>>>> + _Bool h : 5; // expected-error {{width of bit-field 'h'
>>>>>>> (5 bits) exceeds width of its type (1 bit)}}
>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> struct b {unsigned x : 2;} x;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Modified: cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/bitfield-layout.cpp
>>>>>>> URL:
>>>>>>> *http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/bitfield-layout.cpp?rev=247618&r1=247617&r2=247618&view=diff*
>>>>>>> <http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/bitfield-layout.cpp?rev=247618&r1=247617&r2=247618&view=diff>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ==============================================================================
>>>>>>> --- cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/bitfield-layout.cpp (original)
>>>>>>> +++ cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/bitfield-layout.cpp Mon Sep 14
>>>>>>> 16:27:36 2015
>>>>>>> @@ -5,25 +5,25 @@
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> // Simple tests.
>>>>>>> struct Test1 {
>>>>>>> - char c : 9; // expected-warning {{size of bit-field 'c'
>>>>>>> (9 bits) exceeds the size of its type; value will be truncated to 8 bits}}
>>>>>>> + char c : 9; // expected-warning {{width of bit-field
>>>>>>> 'c' (9 bits) exceeds the width of its type; value will be truncated to 8
>>>>>>> bits}}
>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>> CHECK_SIZE(Test1, 2);
>>>>>>> CHECK_ALIGN(Test1, 1);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> struct Test2 {
>>>>>>> - char c : 16; // expected-warning {{size of bit-field
>>>>>>> 'c' (16 bits) exceeds the size of its type; value will be truncated to 8
>>>>>>> bits}}
>>>>>>> + char c : 16; // expected-warning {{width of bit-field
>>>>>>> 'c' (16 bits) exceeds the width of its type; value will be truncated to 8
>>>>>>> bits}}
>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>> CHECK_SIZE(Test2, 2);
>>>>>>> CHECK_ALIGN(Test2, 2);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> struct Test3 {
>>>>>>> - char c : 32; // expected-warning {{size of bit-field
>>>>>>> 'c' (32 bits) exceeds the size of its type; value will be truncated to 8
>>>>>>> bits}}
>>>>>>> + char c : 32; // expected-warning {{width of bit-field
>>>>>>> 'c' (32 bits) exceeds the width of its type; value will be truncated to 8
>>>>>>> bits}}
>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>> CHECK_SIZE(Test3, 4);
>>>>>>> CHECK_ALIGN(Test3, 4);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> struct Test4 {
>>>>>>> - char c : 64; // expected-warning {{size of bit-field
>>>>>>> 'c' (64 bits) exceeds the size of its type; value will be truncated to 8
>>>>>>> bits}}
>>>>>>> + char c : 64; // expected-warning {{width of bit-field
>>>>>>> 'c' (64 bits) exceeds the width of its type; value will be truncated to 8
>>>>>>> bits}}
>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>> CHECK_SIZE(Test4, 8);
>>>>>>> CHECK_ALIGN(Test4, 8);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Modified:
>>>>>>> cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/constant-expression-cxx11.cpp
>>>>>>> URL:
>>>>>>> *http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/constant-expression-cxx11.cpp?rev=247618&r1=247617&r2=247618&view=diff*
>>>>>>> <http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/constant-expression-cxx11.cpp?rev=247618&r1=247617&r2=247618&view=diff>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ==============================================================================
>>>>>>> --- cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/constant-expression-cxx11.cpp
>>>>>>> (original)
>>>>>>> +++ cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/constant-expression-cxx11.cpp
>>>>>>> Mon Sep 14 16:27:36 2015
>>>>>>> @@ -1801,9 +1801,9 @@ namespace Bitfields {
>>>>>>> bool b : 1;
>>>>>>> unsigned u : 5;
>>>>>>> int n : 5;
>>>>>>> - bool b2 : 3;
>>>>>>> - unsigned u2 : 74; // expected-warning {{exceeds the
>>>>>>> size of its type}}
>>>>>>> - int n2 : 81; // expected-warning {{exceeds the size
>>>>>>> of its type}}
>>>>>>> + bool b2 : 3; // expected-warning {{exceeds the width
>>>>>>> of its type}}
>>>>>>> + unsigned u2 : 74; // expected-warning {{exceeds the
>>>>>>> width of its type}}
>>>>>>> + int n2 : 81; // expected-warning {{exceeds the width
>>>>>>> of its type}}
>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> constexpr A a = { false, 33, 31, false, 0xffffffff,
>>>>>>> 0x7fffffff }; // expected-warning 2{{truncation}}
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Modified:
>>>>>>> cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/constant-expression-cxx1y.cpp
>>>>>>> URL:
>>>>>>> *http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/constant-expression-cxx1y.cpp?rev=247618&r1=247617&r2=247618&view=diff*
>>>>>>> <http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/constant-expression-cxx1y.cpp?rev=247618&r1=247617&r2=247618&view=diff>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ==============================================================================
>>>>>>> --- cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/constant-expression-cxx1y.cpp
>>>>>>> (original)
>>>>>>> +++ cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/constant-expression-cxx1y.cpp
>>>>>>> Mon Sep 14 16:27:36 2015
>>>>>>> @@ -872,7 +872,7 @@ namespace Lifetime {
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> namespace Bitfields {
>>>>>>> struct A {
>>>>>>> - bool b : 3;
>>>>>>> + bool b : 1;
>>>>>>> int n : 4;
>>>>>>> unsigned u : 5;
>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Modified: cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/ms_wide_bitfield.cpp
>>>>>>> URL:
>>>>>>> *http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/ms_wide_bitfield.cpp?rev=247618&r1=247617&r2=247618&view=diff*
>>>>>>> <http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/ms_wide_bitfield.cpp?rev=247618&r1=247617&r2=247618&view=diff>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ==============================================================================
>>>>>>> --- cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/ms_wide_bitfield.cpp (original)
>>>>>>> +++ cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/ms_wide_bitfield.cpp Mon Sep 14
>>>>>>> 16:27:36 2015
>>>>>>> @@ -1,9 +1,10 @@
>>>>>>> // RUN: %clang_cc1 -fno-rtti -emit-llvm-only -triple
>>>>>>> i686-pc-win32 -fdump-record-layouts -fsyntax-only -mms-bitfields -verify %s
>>>>>>> 2>&1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> struct A {
>>>>>>> - char a : 9; // expected-error{{size of bit-field 'a' (9
>>>>>>> bits) exceeds size of its type (8 bits)}}
>>>>>>> - int b : 33; // expected-error{{size of bit-field 'b'
>>>>>>> (33 bits) exceeds size of its type (32 bits)}}
>>>>>>> - bool c : 9; // expected-error{{size of bit-field 'c' (9
>>>>>>> bits) exceeds size of its type (8 bits)}}
>>>>>>> + char a : 9; // expected-error{{width of bit-field 'a'
>>>>>>> (9 bits) exceeds width of its type (8 bits)}}
>>>>>>> + int b : 33; // expected-error{{width of bit-field 'b'
>>>>>>> (33 bits) exceeds width of its type (32 bits)}}
>>>>>>> + bool c : 9; // expected-error{{width of bit-field 'c'
>>>>>>> (9 bits) exceeds width of its type (1 bit)}}
>>>>>>> + bool d : 3; // expected-error{{width of bit-field 'd'
>>>>>>> (3 bits) exceeds width of its type (1 bit)}}
>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int a[sizeof(A) == 1 ? 1 : -1];
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Modified: cfe/trunk/test/SemaObjC/class-bitfield.m
>>>>>>> URL:
>>>>>>> *http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/SemaObjC/class-bitfield.m?rev=247618&r1=247617&r2=247618&view=diff*
>>>>>>> <http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/SemaObjC/class-bitfield.m?rev=247618&r1=247617&r2=247618&view=diff>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ==============================================================================
>>>>>>> --- cfe/trunk/test/SemaObjC/class-bitfield.m (original)
>>>>>>> +++ cfe/trunk/test/SemaObjC/class-bitfield.m Mon Sep 14
>>>>>>> 16:27:36 2015
>>>>>>> @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
>>>>>>> int a : -1; // expected-error{{bit-field 'a' has
>>>>>>> negative width}}
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> // rdar://6081627
>>>>>>> - int b : 33; // expected-error{{size of bit-field 'b'
>>>>>>> (33 bits) exceeds size of its type (32 bits)}}
>>>>>>> + int b : 33; // expected-error{{width of bit-field 'b'
>>>>>>> (33 bits) exceeds width of its type (32 bits)}}
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int c : (1 + 0.25); // expected-error{{expression is
>>>>>>> not an integer constant expression}}
>>>>>>> int d : (int)(1 + 0.25);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> cfe-commits mailing list
>>>>>>> *cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org* <cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org>
>>>>>>> *http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits*
>>>>>>> <http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> cfe-commits mailing list
>>>>>>> *cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org* <cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org>
>>>>>>> *http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits*
>>>>>>> <http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cfe-commits mailing list
>>> cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org
>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20150918/d4191518/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: graycol.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20150918/d4191518/attachment-0001.gif>
More information about the cfe-commits
mailing list