r247618 - C11 _Bool bitfield diagnostic
Alexey Samsonov via cfe-commits
cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org
Mon Sep 21 15:21:29 PDT 2015
Do you plan to fix diagnostic emission for cases like "bool b : 4" in the
near future, or it makes sense to revert this change until we reach
consensus on the rules, and implementation?
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 11:17 PM, Nico Weber via cfe-commits <
cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-commits mailing list
> cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>
>
--
Alexey Samsonov
vonosmas at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20150921/f010b74c/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/20150921/f010b74c/attachment-0001.gif>
More information about the cfe-commits
mailing list