r218428 - Fix handling of preincrement on bit-fields. This gives a bit-field in C++, but
Richard Smith
richard-llvm at metafoo.co.uk
Wed Sep 24 16:55:01 PDT 2014
Author: rsmith
Date: Wed Sep 24 18:55:00 2014
New Revision: 218428
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=218428&view=rev
Log:
Fix handling of preincrement on bit-fields. This gives a bit-field in C++, but
we were failing to find that bit-field when performing integer promotions. This
brings us closer to following the standard, and closer to GCC.
In C, this change is technically a regression: we get bit-field promotions
completely wrong in C, promoting cases that are categorically not bit-field
designators. This change makes us do so slightly more consistently, though.
Added:
cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/bitfield.cpp
Modified:
cfe/trunk/lib/AST/ASTContext.cpp
cfe/trunk/lib/AST/Expr.cpp
cfe/trunk/test/Sema/bitfield.c
Modified: cfe/trunk/lib/AST/ASTContext.cpp
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/AST/ASTContext.cpp?rev=218428&r1=218427&r2=218428&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- cfe/trunk/lib/AST/ASTContext.cpp (original)
+++ cfe/trunk/lib/AST/ASTContext.cpp Wed Sep 24 18:55:00 2014
@@ -4421,7 +4421,11 @@ unsigned ASTContext::getIntegerRank(cons
QualType ASTContext::isPromotableBitField(Expr *E) const {
if (E->isTypeDependent() || E->isValueDependent())
return QualType();
-
+
+ // FIXME: We should not do this unless E->refersToBitField() is true. This
+ // matters in C where getSourceBitField() will find bit-fields for various
+ // cases where the source expression is not a bit-field designator.
+
FieldDecl *Field = E->getSourceBitField(); // FIXME: conditional bit-fields?
if (!Field)
return QualType();
@@ -4430,9 +4434,20 @@ QualType ASTContext::isPromotableBitFiel
uint64_t BitWidth = Field->getBitWidthValue(*this);
uint64_t IntSize = getTypeSize(IntTy);
- // GCC extension compatibility: if the bit-field size is less than or equal
- // to the size of int, it gets promoted no matter what its type is.
- // For instance, unsigned long bf : 4 gets promoted to signed int.
+ // C++ [conv.prom]p5:
+ // A prvalue for an integral bit-field can be converted to a prvalue of type
+ // int if int can represent all the values of the bit-field; otherwise, it
+ // can be converted to unsigned int if unsigned int can represent all the
+ // values of the bit-field. If the bit-field is larger yet, no integral
+ // promotion applies to it.
+ // C11 6.3.1.1/2:
+ // [For a bit-field of type _Bool, int, signed int, or unsigned int:]
+ // If an int can represent all values of the original type (as restricted by
+ // the width, for a bit-field), the value is converted to an int; otherwise,
+ // it is converted to an unsigned int.
+ //
+ // FIXME: C does not permit promotion of a 'long : 3' bitfield to int.
+ // We perform that promotion here to match GCC and C++.
if (BitWidth < IntSize)
return IntTy;
@@ -4440,9 +4455,10 @@ QualType ASTContext::isPromotableBitFiel
return FT->isSignedIntegerType() ? IntTy : UnsignedIntTy;
// Types bigger than int are not subject to promotions, and therefore act
- // like the base type.
- // FIXME: This doesn't quite match what gcc does, but what gcc does here
- // is ridiculous.
+ // like the base type. GCC has some weird bugs in this area that we
+ // deliberately do not follow (GCC follows a pre-standard resolution to
+ // C's DR315 which treats bit-width as being part of the type, and this leaks
+ // into their semantics in some cases).
return QualType();
}
Modified: cfe/trunk/lib/AST/Expr.cpp
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/AST/Expr.cpp?rev=218428&r1=218427&r2=218428&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- cfe/trunk/lib/AST/Expr.cpp (original)
+++ cfe/trunk/lib/AST/Expr.cpp Wed Sep 24 18:55:00 2014
@@ -3278,6 +3278,10 @@ FieldDecl *Expr::getSourceBitField() {
return BinOp->getRHS()->getSourceBitField();
}
+ if (UnaryOperator *UnOp = dyn_cast<UnaryOperator>(E))
+ if (UnOp->isPrefix() && UnOp->isIncrementDecrementOp())
+ return UnOp->getSubExpr()->getSourceBitField();
+
return nullptr;
}
Modified: cfe/trunk/test/Sema/bitfield.c
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/Sema/bitfield.c?rev=218428&r1=218427&r2=218428&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- cfe/trunk/test/Sema/bitfield.c (original)
+++ cfe/trunk/test/Sema/bitfield.c Wed Sep 24 18:55:00 2014
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-// RUN: %clang_cc1 %s -fsyntax-only -verify
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 %s -fsyntax-only -verify -std=c11
enum e0; // expected-note{{forward declaration of 'enum e0'}}
struct a {
@@ -54,3 +54,22 @@ void test4(struct Test4 *t) {
(void) sizeof(t->var ? t->bitX : t->bitY); // not a bitfield designator in C
(void) sizeof(t->var ? t->bitX : t->bitX); // not a bitfield designator in C
}
+
+typedef unsigned Unsigned;
+typedef signed Signed;
+
+struct Test5 { unsigned n : 2; } t5;
+typedef __typeof__(t5.n) Unsigned; // Bitfield is unsigned
+typedef __typeof__(+t5.n) Signed; // ... but promotes to signed.
+
+typedef __typeof__(t5.n + 0) Signed; // Arithmetic promotes.
+
+typedef __typeof__(+(t5.n = 0)) Signed; // FIXME: Assignment should not; the result
+typedef __typeof__(+(t5.n += 0)) Signed; // is a non-bit-field lvalue of type unsigned.
+typedef __typeof__(+(t5.n *= 0)) Signed;
+
+typedef __typeof__(+(++t5.n)) Signed; // FIXME: Increment is equivalent to compound-assignment.
+typedef __typeof__(+(--t5.n)) Signed; // This should not promote to signed.
+
+typedef __typeof__(+(t5.n++)) Unsigned; // Post-increment is underspecified, but seems to
+typedef __typeof__(+(t5.n--)) Unsigned; // also act like compound-assignment.
Added: cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/bitfield.cpp
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/bitfield.cpp?rev=218428&view=auto
==============================================================================
--- cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/bitfield.cpp (added)
+++ cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/bitfield.cpp Wed Sep 24 18:55:00 2014
@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 %s -verify
+
+// expected-no-diagnostics
+
+namespace PromotionVersusMutation {
+ typedef unsigned Unsigned;
+ typedef signed Signed;
+
+ struct T { unsigned n : 2; } t;
+
+ typedef __typeof__(t.n) Unsigned; // Bitfield is unsigned
+ typedef __typeof__(+t.n) Signed; // ... but promotes to signed.
+
+ typedef __typeof__(t.n + 0) Signed; // Arithmetic promotes.
+
+ typedef __typeof__(t.n = 0) Unsigned; // Assignment produces an lvalue...
+ typedef __typeof__(t.n += 0) Unsigned;
+ typedef __typeof__(t.n *= 0) Unsigned;
+ typedef __typeof__(+(t.n = 0)) Signed; // ... which is a bit-field.
+ typedef __typeof__(+(t.n += 0)) Signed;
+ typedef __typeof__(+(t.n *= 0)) Signed;
+
+ typedef __typeof__(++t.n) Unsigned; // Increment is equivalent to compound-assignment.
+ typedef __typeof__(--t.n) Unsigned;
+ typedef __typeof__(+(++t.n)) Signed;
+ typedef __typeof__(+(--t.n)) Signed;
+
+ typedef __typeof__(t.n++) Unsigned; // Post-increment's result has the type
+ typedef __typeof__(t.n--) Unsigned; // of the operand...
+ typedef __typeof__(+(t.n++)) Unsigned; // ... and is not a bit-field (because
+ typedef __typeof__(+(t.n--)) Unsigned; // it's not a glvalue).
+}
More information about the cfe-commits
mailing list