[LLVMdev] updated code size comparison

Eli Friedman eli.friedman at gmail.com
Wed Jan 20 14:10:14 PST 2010

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:05 PM, John Regehr <regehr at cs.utah.edu> wrote:
>> I started looking through the llvm-gcc vs. clang comparisons, and
>> noticed that in
>> http://embed.cs.utah.edu/embarrassing/jan_10/harvest/source/A9/A9AB5AE7.c
>> , size_t is declared incorrectly.  Any idea how that might have
>> happened?
> Hi Eli,
> Thanks for pointing this out, I'll look into this tonight.
> However I can give you the quick generic answer right now (of course you
> already know it) which is that real C code does just about anything that can
> be parsed :).

Of course, but this looks like the declaration of memset came from a
system header.

> If LLVM warns about this incorrect definition I can eliminate this kind of
> test case, I'll look into this as well.

clang warns and doesn't treat the usual declaration of memset as the C
library memset if size_t is wrong; gcc apparently doesn't care.


More information about the llvm-dev mailing list