r247618 - C11 _Bool bitfield diagnostic
Nico Weber via cfe-commits
cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org
Fri Sep 18 23:17:18 PDT 2015
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 10:19 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk>
wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 8:49 PM, Nico Weber <thakis at chromium.org> wrote:
>
>> 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`?
>>
>
> I don't think it makes sense to treat bool : 3 and bool : 16 differently.
> The fact that an unadorned bool would occupy 8 bits doesn't seem relevant
> to whether we should warn. Either we warn that there are padding bits, or
> we don't.
>
Yup, makes sense.
>
>
>> , 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/a89a7015/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/a89a7015/attachment-0001.gif>
More information about the cfe-commits
mailing list