[cfe-dev] Warning, possible error, in name mangling

[Chris Lattner]

On Jun 13, 2009, at 4:33 AM, AlisdairM(public) wrote:

> As I'm compiling with MSVC I am possibly seeing a different set of  
> warning
> to the majority.
>
> As a starter, the following if-test gets the warning:
>
> warning C4806: '==' : unsafe operation: no value of type 'bool'  
> promoted to
> type 'clang::SrcMgr::CharacteristicKind' can equal the given constant	

This definitely looks like a bug.  Anders, this was introduced in  
r72671, what do you think?

-Chris

>
> ...\llvm\tools\clang\lib\CodeGen\Mangle.cpp line 99
>
>
> The code in question:
>
>  } else if (// C functions are not mangled
>             !Context.getLangOptions().CPlusPlus ||
>             // "main" is not mangled in C++
>             FD->isMain() ||
>             // No mangling in an "implicit extern C" header.
>             (FD->getLocation().isValid() &&
>
> Context.getSourceManager().getFileCharacteristic(FD->getLocation()))
>               == SrcMgr::C_ExternCSystem ||
>             // No name mangling in a C linkage specification.
>             isInCLinkageSpecification(FD))
>    return false;
>
>
>
> It looks to my untrained eye that the following extract has a  
> misplaced
> close-paren:
>
>             (FD->getLocation().isValid() &&
>
> Context.getSourceManager().getFileCharacteristic(FD->getLocation()))
>               == SrcMgr::C_ExternCSystem ||
>
> Which I *think* should be
>
>             (FD->getLocation().isValid() &&
>
> Context.getSourceManager().getFileCharacteristic(FD->getLocation())
>               == SrcMgr::C_ExternCSystem) ||
>
> but that is reading between the lineds of what identifiers are  
> likely to
> mean without understanding the code.
>
> Should I open a bug report, or is this simply noise?
>
> Note that I'm not in a position to produce a test case as I'm acting  
> purely
> on source code warnings without understanding the actual  
> functionality -
> hence the danger of a false positive.
>
> [Note this warning is actually the least of my worries but easiest  
> to report
> - most of the noise is ~5000 operator-new overloaded without matching
> operator delete overload, which I am hope to investigate properly]
>
> AlisdairM
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev