[LLVMdev] what's correct behavior for struct forward declarations?

[Chris Lattner]

On Feb 18, 2009, at 8:20 PM, Philip Guo wrote:

> hi all,
>
> i'm trying to use LLVM to compile some linux kernel code, and i  
> noticed a mismatch with gcc.  here is a simplified test case:

This definitely looks like a bug, but I can't reproduce it with  
mainline.  Are you sure this is not fixed with SVN?

-Chris

>
>
> struct foo {
>   int a;
>   int b;
>   int c;
> };
>
> static struct foo x; // 'forward' declaration?
>
> int bar() {
>   printf("a: %d, b: %d, c: %d\n", x.a, x.b, x.c);
> }
>
> static struct foo x = {
>   .a = 1, .b = 2, .c = 3,
> };
>
> int main() {
>   bar();
>   return 0;
> }
>
>
> when this code is compiled with gcc and run, stdout prints "a: 1, b:  
> 2, c: 3", which means that it takes the true declaration of x,  
> initialized to 1, 2, 3.  however, when it's compiled with llvm, llvm  
> emits the following code for x:
>
> @x = internal global %struct.foo zeroinitializer    ; <%struct.foo*>  
> [#uses=3]
>
> which seems to me like it's taking the first declaration of x, which  
> is a forward declaration.  is that the correct behavior?  i believe  
> that the kernel developers intended for the second (real  
> declaration) of x to be visible, even in bar(), but that's not  
> what's happening with llvm.  is there an easy workaround where i can  
> get llvm to emit code initializing x to {1,2,3}?  thanks!
>
> Philip
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev