[PATCH] D27123: Add AVR target and toolchain to Clang

[Dylan McKay via cfe-commits]

I've just raised a bug here

https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=31530

> What's necessary for sign-off? Should I ping the reviewer (Richard Smith)
again?

I think so long as Richard or someone else who actively works on Clang
signs off. Perhaps somebody else is keen to review?

On the other hand, I can review it and then ask if there aren't any
objections to it being in-tree within a few days, I can commit it.

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 7:20 PM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj <
senthilkumar.selvaraj at microchip.com> wrote:

>
> Dylan McKay writes:
>
> > Did you get the BugZilla account sorted Senthil?
>
> Nope, direct email also didn't help. Can you please file a bug with
>
> Title:
>
> UINT16_TYPE and INT16_TYPE are defined as short instead of int for AVR
>
> Description:
>
>    UINT16_TYPE and INT16_TYPE are implicitly defined by the preprocessor
>    to the short type, rather than int. While shorts and ints are both
>    16 bits wide on the avr, gcc picks ints to represent 16 bits wherever
>    possible, and picking short can cause issues with C++ name mangling
>    (see https://reviews.llvm.org/D27123#615854). Therefore, clang should
>    define the two types to short.
>
>    Clang's lib/Frontend/InitPreprocessor.cpp::DefineExactWidthIntType
> does not
>    use TargetInfo::getIntTypeByWidth. Instead,
>    InitializePredefinedMacros calls
>    the function with the specific type (SignedShort/UnsignedShort), because
>    getShortWidth() > getCharWidth(), but getIntWidth() ==
>    getShortWidth().
>
>
> What's necessary for sign-off? Should I ping the reviewer (Richard Smith)
> again?
>
> Regards
> Senthil
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20170104/c8408b84/attachment-0001.html>