[cfe-dev] Likely nasty bug with enum constants type

Abramo Bagnara abramo.bagnara at gmail.com
Wed Feb 3 11:21:06 PST 2010

Il 01/02/2010 19:54, Douglas Gregor ha scritto:
> On Feb 1, 2010, at 7:53 AM, Abramo Bagnara wrote:
>> Il 01/02/2010 15:55, Eli Friedman ha scritto:
>>> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 3:17 AM, Abramo Bagnara <abramo.bagnara at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> $ cat bug.c
>>>> enum {
>>>> a = 1U,
>>>> b = a-2
>>>> };
>>>> int x[b];
>>>> $ gcc -S -std=c99 -pedantic -W -Wall bug.c
>>>> bug.c:7: error: size of array ‘x’ is negative
>>>> $ ~/llvm/Debug/bin/clang -S -std=c99 -pedantic -W -Wall bug.c
>>>> $
>>>> This typescript show that while gcc (as mandated by c99 standard)
>>>> correctly gives int as the type of the enum constant, clang gives it
>>>> unsigned type.
>>>> Do you confirm the bug?
>>> Yes; see http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=4515 .
>> We have found this bug investigating about a failed assertion on clang
>> that perhaps it's a different bug, I don't know.
>> The fact is that after the type adapting phases of the enum constants to
>> the finally decided underlying enum type, the DeclRefExpr referring an
>> enum constant found inside another enum constant initializer expressions
>> retains the original type (that is incongruent with newly assigned
>> EnumConstantDecl type).
> From the AST perspective, that's not necessarily a problem. In fact,
> C++ is quite specific that the types of enumerators before and after the
> closing "}" are different; we don't get that right either:
> 	http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=5854
> C is less clear, but the intent appears to be that the type of all
> enumerator values is int. However, GCC extends C to permit enumerator
> values which do not have type int when the value is not representable in
> an int. So, we'll still end up with enumerator values that don't match
> the enum type.

I have to say that the thing is for me a surprise: are you saying that
according to clang design, in the AST the registered type of a
DeclRefExpr node may be different from type of referred Decl (at least
in this case)?

There are also other known cases where we can have such kind of type

I was under the impression that types in AST should always be correct
for things to work (and this is the reason why I was not surprised to
see such assertion in constant expression evaluator).

More information about the cfe-dev mailing list