[cfe-dev] invalid bits size for WrittenBuiltinSpecs::Type

[Vladimir Voskresensky via cfe-dev]

On 14.03.2017 00:33, Reid Kleckner via cfe-dev wrote:
> I think this is something the compiler should catch. I'm writing a 
> generalized warning in clang for it right now.
Yes, I agree. In fact, this is how I got here myself. I ran test

${LLVM_SRC}/llvm/tools/clang/test/Lexer/cxx1z-trigraphs.cpp

using Clank (the Java port of CLang)
https://eurollvm2017.sched.com/event/9wDw/clank-java-port-of-cc-compiler-frontend
  and got Java-assert that reducing from enumerator to 5 bits doesn't 
fit for TST_error value :-)

Please, send me the changeset when you are done with compiler warning.

Thanks!
Vladimir.

>
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Vladimir Voskresensky via cfe-dev 
> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>
>     Reid,
>
>     May be it's worth to have the same assert for
>     clang::DeclSpec::TypeSpecType?
>
>     Thanks,
>     Vladimir.
>
>
>     On 13.03.2017 21:59, Reid Kleckner via cfe-dev wrote:
>>     Thanks, fixed in r297654.
>>
>>     On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Vladimir Voskresensky via
>>     cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>>
>>     wrote:
>>
>>         Hello Clang Developers,
>>
>>         in file clang/Basic/Specifiers.h there is
>>            struct clang::WrittenBuiltinSpecs {
>>              /*DeclSpec::TST*/ unsigned Type  : 5; // << must be *6*
>>         ....
>>           };
>>
>>         "Type" field must be 6 to match DeclSpec::TST which is the
>>         same as enum TypeSpecifierType
>>         which has
>>          TST_error // erroneous type
>>         with value 43 which can not be kept in 5 bits field.
>>
>>         as a correct example you can see that
>>         clang::DeclSpec::TypeSpecType field is 6 bits
>>
>>         So, we corrupt values  during save in
>>         clang::DeclSpec::SaveWrittenBuiltinSpecs for all after
>>         TST_image1d_t.
>>         Btw, due to this TST_error is changed to TST_float128....
>>
>>         Hope it helps,
>>         Vladimir.
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         cfe-dev mailing list
>>         cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>>         http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>         <http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     cfe-dev mailing list
>>     cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>>     http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>     <http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev>
>     _______________________________________________ cfe-dev mailing
>     list cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>     http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>     <http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev> 
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20170314/56d6cfc2/attachment.html>