On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 8:49 PM, Nico Weber <tha...@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Richard Smith <rich...@metafoo.co.uk> > wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Richard Smith <rich...@metafoo.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Nico Weber via cfe-commits < >>> cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 5:50 PM, Richard Smith <rich...@metafoo.co.uk> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Nico Weber <tha...@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. > , 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 <rich...@metafoo.co.uk> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 7:07 PM, Rachel Craik <rcr...@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@metafo]Nico >>>>>>>> Weber ---09/14/2015 09:53:25 PM---On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 5:28 PM, >>>>>>>> Richard >>>>>>>> Smith <rich...@metafoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From: Nico Weber <tha...@chromium.org> >>>>>>>> To: Richard Smith <rich...@metafoo.co.uk> >>>>>>>> Cc: Rachel Craik/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, cfe-commits < >>>>>>>> cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> >>>>>>>> Date: 09/14/2015 09:53 PM >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: r247618 - C11 _Bool bitfield diagnostic >>>>>>>> Sent by: tha...@google.com >>>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Richard Smith < >>>>>>>> *rich...@metafoo.co.uk* <rich...@metafoo.co.uk>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Nico Weber via cfe-commits < >>>>>>>> *cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org* <cfe-commits@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@lists.llvm.org* <cfe-commits@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@lists.llvm.org* <cfe-commits@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@lists.llvm.org* <cfe-commits@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@lists.llvm.org >>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits