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@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 10:19 PM, Richard Smith <rich...@metafoo.co.uk> > wrote: > >> 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. >> > > 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 < >>>>>>>> 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 > > -- Alexey Samsonov vonos...@gmail.com
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits