Re: [PATCH] D19654: PR27132: Proper mangling for __unaligned qualifier (now with PR27367 fixed)
majnemer added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19654#423382, @andreybokhanko wrote: > David, thank you for the thorough review! -- it definitely made the patch > stronger and me even more paranoid than the rest of Intel. :-) Thanks for implementing this :) > > > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19654#422445, @majnemer wrote: > > > FYI, we will also want to update `getAddrOfCXXCatchHandler` and > > `getThrowInfo` to correctly handle `__unaligned`. > > > Do you want me to implement this (I have no idea how EH works on Windows, but > can try...) or plan to implement yourself? I have no plans to implement this but I don't think it is very difficult. The way I'd go about this is to see what happens when the following occur: throw (int *__unaligned)nullptr; MSVC should emit a ThrowInfo object, _TI... which points to a CatchableTypeArray, _CTA... which will point to two CatchableTypes, _CT...: one for pointer-to-void and the other for pointer-to-int. Both of the CatchableTypes have a bitfield containing qualifiers, among other things. One of these are where __unaligned should go, see `getThrowInfo` for more details. > Yours, > Andrey Repository: rL LLVM http://reviews.llvm.org/D19654 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Re: [PATCH] D19654: PR27132: Proper mangling for __unaligned qualifier (now with PR27367 fixed)
andreybokhanko added a comment. David, thank you for the thorough review! -- it definitely made the patch stronger and me even more paranoid than the rest of Intel. :-) In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19654#422445, @majnemer wrote: > FYI, we will also want to update `getAddrOfCXXCatchHandler` and > `getThrowInfo` to correctly handle `__unaligned`. Do you want me to implement this (I have no idea how EH works on Windows, but can try...) or plan to implement yourself? Yours, Andrey Repository: rL LLVM http://reviews.llvm.org/D19654 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Re: [PATCH] D19654: PR27132: Proper mangling for __unaligned qualifier (now with PR27367 fixed)
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rL268727: [MSVC] Implementation of __unaligned as a proper
type qualifier (authored by asbokhan).
Changed prior to commit:
http://reviews.llvm.org/D19654?vs=55588&id=56401#toc
Repository:
rL LLVM
http://reviews.llvm.org/D19654
Files:
cfe/trunk/include/clang/AST/Type.h
cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/AddressSpaces.h
cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/Attr.td
cfe/trunk/include/clang/Sema/DeclSpec.h
cfe/trunk/include/clang/Sema/Sema.h
cfe/trunk/lib/AST/MicrosoftMangle.cpp
cfe/trunk/lib/AST/TypePrinter.cpp
cfe/trunk/lib/Parse/ParseDecl.cpp
cfe/trunk/lib/Parse/ParseTentative.cpp
cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/DeclSpec.cpp
cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaCodeComplete.cpp
cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp
cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaDeclObjC.cpp
cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaExpr.cpp
cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaOverload.cpp
cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaType.cpp
cfe/trunk/test/CodeGenCXX/mangle-ms-cxx11.cpp
cfe/trunk/test/CodeGenCXX/mangle-ms-cxx14.cpp
cfe/trunk/test/Sema/MicrosoftExtensions.c
cfe/trunk/test/Sema/address_spaces.c
cfe/trunk/test/Sema/invalid-assignment-constant-address-space.c
cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/MicrosoftExtensions.cpp
Index: cfe/trunk/include/clang/AST/Type.h
===
--- cfe/trunk/include/clang/AST/Type.h
+++ cfe/trunk/include/clang/AST/Type.h
@@ -152,8 +152,8 @@
enum {
/// The maximum supported address space number.
-/// 24 bits should be enough for anyone.
-MaxAddressSpace = 0xffu,
+/// 23 bits should be enough for anyone.
+MaxAddressSpace = 0x7fu,
/// The width of the "fast" qualifier mask.
FastWidth = 3,
@@ -265,6 +265,13 @@
Mask |= mask;
}
+ bool hasUnaligned() const { return Mask & UMask; }
+ void setUnaligned(bool flag) {
+Mask = (Mask & ~UMask) | (flag ? UMask : 0);
+ }
+ void removeUnaligned() { Mask &= ~UMask; }
+ void addUnaligned() { Mask |= UMask; }
+
bool hasObjCGCAttr() const { return Mask & GCAttrMask; }
GC getObjCGCAttr() const { return GC((Mask & GCAttrMask) >> GCAttrShift); }
void setObjCGCAttr(GC type) {
@@ -433,7 +440,9 @@
// ObjC lifetime qualifiers must match exactly.
getObjCLifetime() == other.getObjCLifetime() &&
// CVR qualifiers may subset.
- (((Mask & CVRMask) | (other.Mask & CVRMask)) == (Mask & CVRMask));
+ (((Mask & CVRMask) | (other.Mask & CVRMask)) == (Mask & CVRMask)) &&
+ // U qualifier may superset.
+ (!(other.Mask & UMask) || (Mask & UMask));
}
/// \brief Determines if these qualifiers compatibly include another set of
@@ -501,16 +510,19 @@
private:
- // bits: |0 1 2|3 .. 4|5 .. 7|8 ... 31|
- // |C R V|GCAttr|Lifetime|AddressSpace|
+ // bits: |0 1 2|3|4 .. 5|6 .. 8|9 ... 31|
+ // |C R V|U|GCAttr|Lifetime|AddressSpace|
uint32_t Mask;
- static const uint32_t GCAttrMask = 0x18;
- static const uint32_t GCAttrShift = 3;
- static const uint32_t LifetimeMask = 0xE0;
- static const uint32_t LifetimeShift = 5;
- static const uint32_t AddressSpaceMask = ~(CVRMask|GCAttrMask|LifetimeMask);
- static const uint32_t AddressSpaceShift = 8;
+ static const uint32_t UMask = 0x8;
+ static const uint32_t UShift = 3;
+ static const uint32_t GCAttrMask = 0x30;
+ static const uint32_t GCAttrShift = 4;
+ static const uint32_t LifetimeMask = 0x1C0;
+ static const uint32_t LifetimeShift = 6;
+ static const uint32_t AddressSpaceMask =
+ ~(CVRMask | UMask | GCAttrMask | LifetimeMask);
+ static const uint32_t AddressSpaceShift = 9;
};
/// A std::pair-like structure for storing a qualified type split
@@ -5377,7 +5389,13 @@
/// int" is at least as qualified as "const int", "volatile int",
/// "int", and "const volatile int".
inline bool QualType::isAtLeastAsQualifiedAs(QualType other) const {
- return getQualifiers().compatiblyIncludes(other.getQualifiers());
+ Qualifiers otherQuals = other.getQualifiers();
+
+ // Ignore __unaligned qualifier if this type is a void.
+ if (getUnqualifiedType()->isVoidType())
+otherQuals.removeUnaligned();
+
+ return getQualifiers().compatiblyIncludes(otherQuals);
}
/// If Type is a reference type (e.g., const
Index: cfe/trunk/include/clang/Sema/Sema.h
===
--- cfe/trunk/include/clang/Sema/Sema.h
+++ cfe/trunk/include/clang/Sema/Sema.h
@@ -1675,7 +1675,8 @@
SourceLocation ConstQualLoc = SourceLocation(),
SourceLocation VolatileQualLoc = SourceLocation(),
SourceLocation RestrictQualLoc = SourceLocation(),
-SourceLocation AtomicQualLoc = SourceLocation());
+SourceLocation AtomicQualLoc = SourceLocation(),
+SourceLocation UnalignedQua
Re: [PATCH] D19654: PR27132: Proper mangling for __unaligned qualifier (now with PR27367 fixed)
majnemer accepted this revision. majnemer added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. LGTM FYI, we will also want to update `getAddrOfCXXCatchHandler` and `getThrowInfo` to correctly handle `__unaligned`. http://reviews.llvm.org/D19654 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Re: [PATCH] D19654: PR27132: Proper mangling for __unaligned qualifier (now with PR27367 fixed)
andreybokhanko added a comment.
David, just noticed that your first question doesn't have a redefinition. For
this program:
__unaligned int unaligned_foo3() { return 0; }
auto z = unaligned_foo3();
Both MS and us mangle z the same:
?z@@3HA
Yours,
Andrey
http://reviews.llvm.org/D19654
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Re: [PATCH] D19654: PR27132: Proper mangling for __unaligned qualifier (now with PR27367 fixed)
andreybokhanko marked an inline comment as done.
Comment at: lib/AST/MicrosoftMangle.cpp:1583-1584
@@ -1579,2 +1582,4 @@
case QMM_Result:
+// Presence of __unaligned qualifier shouldn't affect mangling here.
+Quals.removeUnaligned();
if ((!IsPointer && Quals) || isa(T)) {
majnemer wrote:
> majnemer wrote:
> > rnk wrote:
> > > majnemer wrote:
> > > > andreybokhanko wrote:
> > > > > majnemer wrote:
> > > > > > andreybokhanko wrote:
> > > > > > > Done. Test added.
> > > > > > Hmm, can you give a concrete example why we need this line?
> > > > > Sure. An example is:
> > > > >
> > > > > __unaligned int unaligned_foo3() { return 0; }
> > > > >
> > > > > MS mangles it as
> > > > >
> > > > > ?unaligned_foo3@@YAHXZ
> > > > >
> > > > > However, if __unaligned is taken into account, "if ((!IsPointer &&
> > > > > Quals) || isa(T))" computes to true and clang adds "?A",
> > > > > resulting to
> > > > >
> > > > > ?unaligned_foo3@@YA?AHXZ
> > > > >
> > > > > Yours,
> > > > > Andrey
> > > > >
> > > > Wait, I thought __unaligned can only apply to pointer types. Is this
> > > > not so?!
> > > > Does `__unaligned int x;` really keep it's `__unaligned` qualifier?
> > > Yeah it does:
> > > $ cat t.cpp
> > > __unaligned int x;
> > > $ cl -nologo -c t.cpp && dumpbin /symbols t.obj | grep ?x
> > > t.cpp
> > > 008 SECT3 notype External | ?x@@3HFA (int
> > > __unaligned x)
> > Woah. So if you do:
> >
> > > __unaligned int unaligned_foo3() { return 0; }
> > > auto z = foo3();
> >
> > How is `z` mangled?
> `z` is mangled without the qualifiers. In fact:
>
> ```
> __unaligned int unaligned_foo3() { return 0; }
> __unaligned int z;
> auto z = unaligned_foo3();
> ```
>
> Is an error:
>
>
> > x.cpp(3): error C2373: 'z': redefinition; different type modifiers
> > x.cpp(2): note: see declaration of 'z'
>
> Do we have comparable behavior?
Not exactly the same, but comparable, indeed:
```
$ clang -cc1 ~/test.cpp -std=c++11 -triple i686-pc-win32 -fms-extensions
/nfs/ims/home/asbokhan/test.cpp:3:6: error: redefinition of 'z'
auto z = unaligned_foo3();
^
/nfs/ims/home/asbokhan/test.cpp:2:17: note: previous definition is here
__unaligned int z;
^
1 error generated.
```
This has nothing to do with __unaligned, though, as both MS compiler and us
don't allow redefinitions. If a redefinition has a different __unaligned
modifier, MS also notes this (with "; different type modifiers" suffix in the
message), but it doesn't serve any practical purpose, as changing modifier
won't make the code compilable.
Yours,
Andrey
http://reviews.llvm.org/D19654
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Re: [PATCH] D19654: PR27132: Proper mangling for __unaligned qualifier (now with PR27367 fixed)
majnemer added inline comments.
Comment at: lib/AST/MicrosoftMangle.cpp:1583-1584
@@ -1579,2 +1582,4 @@
case QMM_Result:
+// Presence of __unaligned qualifier shouldn't affect mangling here.
+Quals.removeUnaligned();
if ((!IsPointer && Quals) || isa(T)) {
majnemer wrote:
> rnk wrote:
> > majnemer wrote:
> > > andreybokhanko wrote:
> > > > majnemer wrote:
> > > > > andreybokhanko wrote:
> > > > > > Done. Test added.
> > > > > Hmm, can you give a concrete example why we need this line?
> > > > Sure. An example is:
> > > >
> > > > __unaligned int unaligned_foo3() { return 0; }
> > > >
> > > > MS mangles it as
> > > >
> > > > ?unaligned_foo3@@YAHXZ
> > > >
> > > > However, if __unaligned is taken into account, "if ((!IsPointer &&
> > > > Quals) || isa(T))" computes to true and clang adds "?A",
> > > > resulting to
> > > >
> > > > ?unaligned_foo3@@YA?AHXZ
> > > >
> > > > Yours,
> > > > Andrey
> > > >
> > > Wait, I thought __unaligned can only apply to pointer types. Is this not
> > > so?!
> > > Does `__unaligned int x;` really keep it's `__unaligned` qualifier?
> > Yeah it does:
> > $ cat t.cpp
> > __unaligned int x;
> > $ cl -nologo -c t.cpp && dumpbin /symbols t.obj | grep ?x
> > t.cpp
> > 008 SECT3 notype External | ?x@@3HFA (int __unaligned
> > x)
> Woah. So if you do:
>
> > __unaligned int unaligned_foo3() { return 0; }
> > auto z = foo3();
>
> How is `z` mangled?
`z` is mangled without the qualifiers. In fact:
```
__unaligned int unaligned_foo3() { return 0; }
__unaligned int z;
auto z = unaligned_foo3();
```
Is an error:
> x.cpp(3): error C2373: 'z': redefinition; different type modifiers
> x.cpp(2): note: see declaration of 'z'
Do we have comparable behavior?
http://reviews.llvm.org/D19654
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Re: [PATCH] D19654: PR27132: Proper mangling for __unaligned qualifier (now with PR27367 fixed)
majnemer added inline comments.
Comment at: lib/AST/MicrosoftMangle.cpp:1583-1584
@@ -1579,2 +1582,4 @@
case QMM_Result:
+// Presence of __unaligned qualifier shouldn't affect mangling here.
+Quals.removeUnaligned();
if ((!IsPointer && Quals) || isa(T)) {
rnk wrote:
> majnemer wrote:
> > andreybokhanko wrote:
> > > majnemer wrote:
> > > > andreybokhanko wrote:
> > > > > Done. Test added.
> > > > Hmm, can you give a concrete example why we need this line?
> > > Sure. An example is:
> > >
> > > __unaligned int unaligned_foo3() { return 0; }
> > >
> > > MS mangles it as
> > >
> > > ?unaligned_foo3@@YAHXZ
> > >
> > > However, if __unaligned is taken into account, "if ((!IsPointer && Quals)
> > > || isa(T))" computes to true and clang adds "?A", resulting to
> > >
> > > ?unaligned_foo3@@YA?AHXZ
> > >
> > > Yours,
> > > Andrey
> > >
> > Wait, I thought __unaligned can only apply to pointer types. Is this not
> > so?!
> > Does `__unaligned int x;` really keep it's `__unaligned` qualifier?
> Yeah it does:
> $ cat t.cpp
> __unaligned int x;
> $ cl -nologo -c t.cpp && dumpbin /symbols t.obj | grep ?x
> t.cpp
> 008 SECT3 notype External | ?x@@3HFA (int __unaligned x)
Woah. So if you do:
> __unaligned int unaligned_foo3() { return 0; }
> auto z = foo3();
How is `z` mangled?
http://reviews.llvm.org/D19654
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Re: [PATCH] D19654: PR27132: Proper mangling for __unaligned qualifier (now with PR27367 fixed)
What Reid said...
Yours,
Andrey
> 5 мая 2016 г., в 1:48, Reid Kleckner написал(а):
>
> rnk added inline comments.
>
>
> Comment at: lib/AST/MicrosoftMangle.cpp:1583-1584
> @@ -1579,2 +1582,4 @@
> case QMM_Result:
> +// Presence of __unaligned qualifier shouldn't affect mangling here.
> +Quals.removeUnaligned();
> if ((!IsPointer && Quals) || isa(T)) {
>
> majnemer wrote:
>> andreybokhanko wrote:
>>> majnemer wrote:
andreybokhanko wrote:
> Done. Test added.
Hmm, can you give a concrete example why we need this line?
>>> Sure. An example is:
>>>
>>> __unaligned int unaligned_foo3() { return 0; }
>>>
>>> MS mangles it as
>>>
>>> ?unaligned_foo3@@YAHXZ
>>>
>>> However, if __unaligned is taken into account, "if ((!IsPointer && Quals)
>>> || isa(T))" computes to true and clang adds "?A", resulting to
>>>
>>> ?unaligned_foo3@@YA?AHXZ
>>>
>>> Yours,
>>> Andrey
>> Wait, I thought __unaligned can only apply to pointer types. Is this not
>> so?!
>> Does `__unaligned int x;` really keep it's `__unaligned` qualifier?
> Yeah it does:
> $ cat t.cpp
> __unaligned int x;
> $ cl -nologo -c t.cpp && dumpbin /symbols t.obj | grep ?x
> t.cpp
> 008 SECT3 notype External | ?x@@3HFA (int __unaligned x)
>
>
> http://reviews.llvm.org/D19654
>
>
>
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Re: [PATCH] D19654: PR27132: Proper mangling for __unaligned qualifier (now with PR27367 fixed)
rnk added inline comments.
Comment at: lib/AST/MicrosoftMangle.cpp:1583-1584
@@ -1579,2 +1582,4 @@
case QMM_Result:
+// Presence of __unaligned qualifier shouldn't affect mangling here.
+Quals.removeUnaligned();
if ((!IsPointer && Quals) || isa(T)) {
majnemer wrote:
> andreybokhanko wrote:
> > majnemer wrote:
> > > andreybokhanko wrote:
> > > > Done. Test added.
> > > Hmm, can you give a concrete example why we need this line?
> > Sure. An example is:
> >
> > __unaligned int unaligned_foo3() { return 0; }
> >
> > MS mangles it as
> >
> > ?unaligned_foo3@@YAHXZ
> >
> > However, if __unaligned is taken into account, "if ((!IsPointer && Quals)
> > || isa(T))" computes to true and clang adds "?A", resulting to
> >
> > ?unaligned_foo3@@YA?AHXZ
> >
> > Yours,
> > Andrey
> >
> Wait, I thought __unaligned can only apply to pointer types. Is this not so?!
> Does `__unaligned int x;` really keep it's `__unaligned` qualifier?
Yeah it does:
$ cat t.cpp
__unaligned int x;
$ cl -nologo -c t.cpp && dumpbin /symbols t.obj | grep ?x
t.cpp
008 SECT3 notype External | ?x@@3HFA (int __unaligned x)
http://reviews.llvm.org/D19654
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Re: [PATCH] D19654: PR27132: Proper mangling for __unaligned qualifier (now with PR27367 fixed)
majnemer added inline comments.
Comment at: lib/AST/MicrosoftMangle.cpp:1583-1584
@@ -1579,2 +1582,4 @@
case QMM_Result:
+// Presence of __unaligned qualifier shouldn't affect mangling here.
+Quals.removeUnaligned();
if ((!IsPointer && Quals) || isa(T)) {
andreybokhanko wrote:
> majnemer wrote:
> > andreybokhanko wrote:
> > > Done. Test added.
> > Hmm, can you give a concrete example why we need this line?
> Sure. An example is:
>
> __unaligned int unaligned_foo3() { return 0; }
>
> MS mangles it as
>
> ?unaligned_foo3@@YAHXZ
>
> However, if __unaligned is taken into account, "if ((!IsPointer && Quals) ||
> isa(T))" computes to true and clang adds "?A", resulting to
>
> ?unaligned_foo3@@YA?AHXZ
>
> Yours,
> Andrey
>
Wait, I thought __unaligned can only apply to pointer types. Is this not so?!
Does `__unaligned int x;` really keep it's `__unaligned` qualifier?
http://reviews.llvm.org/D19654
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Re: [PATCH] D19654: PR27132: Proper mangling for __unaligned qualifier (now with PR27367 fixed)
andreybokhanko marked 3 inline comments as done.
Comment at: lib/AST/MicrosoftMangle.cpp:1583-1584
@@ -1579,2 +1582,4 @@
case QMM_Result:
+// Presence of __unaligned qualifier shouldn't affect mangling here.
+Quals.removeUnaligned();
if ((!IsPointer && Quals) || isa(T)) {
majnemer wrote:
> andreybokhanko wrote:
> > Done. Test added.
> Hmm, can you give a concrete example why we need this line?
Sure. An example is:
__unaligned int unaligned_foo3() { return 0; }
MS mangles it as
?unaligned_foo3@@YAHXZ
However, if __unaligned is taken into account, "if ((!IsPointer && Quals) ||
isa(T))" computes to true and clang adds "?A", resulting to
?unaligned_foo3@@YA?AHXZ
Yours,
Andrey
http://reviews.llvm.org/D19654
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Re: [PATCH] D19654: PR27132: Proper mangling for __unaligned qualifier (now with PR27367 fixed)
majnemer added inline comments.
Comment at: lib/AST/MicrosoftMangle.cpp:1583-1584
@@ -1579,2 +1582,4 @@
case QMM_Result:
+// Presence of __unaligned qualifier shouldn't affect mangling here.
+Quals.removeUnaligned();
if ((!IsPointer && Quals) || isa(T)) {
andreybokhanko wrote:
> Done. Test added.
Hmm, can you give a concrete example why we need this line?
http://reviews.llvm.org/D19654
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Re: [PATCH] D19654: PR27132: Proper mangling for __unaligned qualifier (now with PR27367 fixed)
andreybokhanko marked 3 inline comments as done.
andreybokhanko added a comment.
David, thank you for the review!
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19654#416408, @majnemer wrote:
> It would be good to have a test for the variable template case:
>
> template
> T x;
>
> auto g() { return x; }
>
>
> should mangle to `??$x@PEFAH@@3PEFAHEFA`
It mangles exaclty to `??$x@PEFAH@@3PEFAHEFA` (in 64 bit mode). Test added.
Comment at: lib/AST/MicrosoftMangle.cpp:1446-1451
@@ -1445,5 +1445,8 @@
Out << 'E';
if (HasRestrict)
Out << 'I';
+
+ if (!PointeeType.isNull() && PointeeType.getLocalQualifiers().hasUnaligned())
+Out << 'F';
}
Good catch!
Indeed, __restrict and __unaligned are mangled in a different order. Fixed;
test added.
Comment at: lib/AST/MicrosoftMangle.cpp:1583-1585
@@ -1579,3 +1582,5 @@
case QMM_Result:
+// Presence of __unaligned qualifier shouldn't affect mangling here.
+Quals.removeUnaligned();
if ((!IsPointer && Quals) || isa(T)) {
Out << '?';
Done. Test added.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D19654
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Re: [PATCH] D19654: PR27132: Proper mangling for __unaligned qualifier (now with PR27367 fixed)
andreybokhanko updated this revision to Diff 55588.
andreybokhanko added a comment.
Fixed a bug uncovered by David Majnemer's review; added tests he asked for.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D19654
Files:
include/clang/AST/Type.h
include/clang/Basic/AddressSpaces.h
include/clang/Basic/Attr.td
include/clang/Sema/DeclSpec.h
include/clang/Sema/Sema.h
lib/AST/MicrosoftMangle.cpp
lib/AST/TypePrinter.cpp
lib/Parse/ParseDecl.cpp
lib/Parse/ParseTentative.cpp
lib/Sema/DeclSpec.cpp
lib/Sema/SemaCodeComplete.cpp
lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp
lib/Sema/SemaDeclObjC.cpp
lib/Sema/SemaExpr.cpp
lib/Sema/SemaOverload.cpp
lib/Sema/SemaType.cpp
test/CodeGenCXX/mangle-ms-cxx11.cpp
test/CodeGenCXX/mangle-ms-cxx14.cpp
test/Sema/MicrosoftExtensions.c
test/Sema/address_spaces.c
test/Sema/invalid-assignment-constant-address-space.c
test/SemaCXX/MicrosoftExtensions.cpp
Index: lib/Parse/ParseDecl.cpp
===
--- lib/Parse/ParseDecl.cpp
+++ lib/Parse/ParseDecl.cpp
@@ -609,7 +609,6 @@
case tok::kw___ptr64:
case tok::kw___w64:
case tok::kw___ptr32:
-case tok::kw___unaligned:
case tok::kw___sptr:
case tok::kw___uptr: {
IdentifierInfo *AttrName = Tok.getIdentifierInfo();
@@ -3087,6 +3086,11 @@
break;
}
+case tok::kw___unaligned:
+ isInvalid = DS.SetTypeQual(DeclSpec::TQ_unaligned, Loc, PrevSpec, DiagID,
+ getLangOpts());
+ break;
+
case tok::kw___sptr:
case tok::kw___uptr:
case tok::kw___ptr64:
@@ -3097,7 +3101,6 @@
case tok::kw___fastcall:
case tok::kw___thiscall:
case tok::kw___vectorcall:
-case tok::kw___unaligned:
ParseMicrosoftTypeAttributes(DS.getAttributes());
continue;
@@ -4791,6 +4794,10 @@
ParseOpenCLQualifiers(DS.getAttributes());
break;
+case tok::kw___unaligned:
+ isInvalid = DS.SetTypeQual(DeclSpec::TQ_unaligned, Loc, PrevSpec, DiagID,
+ getLangOpts());
+ break;
case tok::kw___uptr:
// GNU libc headers in C mode use '__uptr' as an identifer which conflicts
// with the MS modifier keyword.
@@ -4808,7 +4815,6 @@
case tok::kw___fastcall:
case tok::kw___thiscall:
case tok::kw___vectorcall:
-case tok::kw___unaligned:
if (AttrReqs & AR_DeclspecAttributesParsed) {
ParseMicrosoftTypeAttributes(DS.getAttributes());
continue;
@@ -5031,7 +5037,8 @@
DS.getConstSpecLoc(),
DS.getVolatileSpecLoc(),
DS.getRestrictSpecLoc(),
-DS.getAtomicSpecLoc()),
+DS.getAtomicSpecLoc(),
+DS.getUnalignedSpecLoc()),
DS.getAttributes(),
SourceLocation());
else
Index: lib/Parse/ParseTentative.cpp
===
--- lib/Parse/ParseTentative.cpp
+++ lib/Parse/ParseTentative.cpp
@@ -833,7 +833,7 @@
// '(' abstract-declarator ')'
if (Tok.isOneOf(tok::kw___attribute, tok::kw___declspec, tok::kw___cdecl,
tok::kw___stdcall, tok::kw___fastcall, tok::kw___thiscall,
- tok::kw___vectorcall, tok::kw___unaligned))
+ tok::kw___vectorcall))
return TPResult::True; // attributes indicate declaration
TPResult TPR = TryParseDeclarator(mayBeAbstract, mayHaveIdentifier);
if (TPR != TPResult::Ambiguous)
Index: lib/AST/MicrosoftMangle.cpp
===
--- lib/AST/MicrosoftMangle.cpp
+++ lib/AST/MicrosoftMangle.cpp
@@ -1446,6 +1446,9 @@
if (HasRestrict)
Out << 'I';
+
+ if (!PointeeType.isNull() && PointeeType.getLocalQualifiers().hasUnaligned())
+Out << 'F';
}
void MicrosoftCXXNameMangler::manglePointerCVQualifiers(Qualifiers Quals) {
@@ -1577,6 +1580,8 @@
}
break;
case QMM_Result:
+// Presence of __unaligned qualifier shouldn't affect mangling here.
+Quals.removeUnaligned();
if ((!IsPointer && Quals) || isa(T)) {
Out << '?';
mangleQualifiers(Quals, false);
Index: lib/AST/TypePrinter.cpp
===
--- lib/AST/TypePrinter.cpp
+++ lib/AST/TypePrinter.cpp
@@ -1592,6 +1592,12 @@
AppendTypeQualList(OS, quals, Policy.LangOpts.C99);
addSpace = true;
}
+ if (hasUnaligned()) {
+if (addSpace)
+ OS << ' ';
+OS << "__unaligned";
+addSpace = true;
+ }
if (unsigned addrspace = getAddressSpace()) {
if (addSpace)
OS << ' ';
Index: lib/Sema/SemaExpr.cpp
===
--- lib/Sema/SemaExpr.c
Re: [PATCH] D19654: PR27132: Proper mangling for __unaligned qualifier (now with PR27367 fixed)
majnemer added a comment.
It would be good to have a test for the variable template case:
template
T x;
auto g() { return x; }
should mangle to `??$x@PEFAH@@3PEFAHEFA`
http://reviews.llvm.org/D19654
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Re: [PATCH] D19654: PR27132: Proper mangling for __unaligned qualifier (now with PR27367 fixed)
majnemer added inline comments.
Comment at: lib/AST/MicrosoftMangle.cpp:1446-1451
@@ -1445,5 +1445,8 @@
Out << 'E';
+ if (!PointeeType.isNull() && PointeeType.getLocalQualifiers().hasUnaligned())
+Out << 'F';
+
if (HasRestrict)
Out << 'I';
}
Have you tested `__restrict` with `__unaligned` on MSVC? I don't see a test
for it here.
Comment at: lib/AST/MicrosoftMangle.cpp:1583-1585
@@ -1579,3 +1582,5 @@
case QMM_Result:
+// Presence of __unaligned qualifier shouldn't affect mangling here.
+Quals.removeUnaligned();
if ((!IsPointer && Quals) || isa(T)) {
Out << '?';
It would be good to see what MSVC does with:
```
template
T f(T t) { return t; }
```
Where `T` is instantiated with `int *` and `int __unaligned *`.
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaType.cpp:1787
@@ -1787,1 +1786,3 @@
+ // TQ_unaligned;
+ unsigned CVR = CVRAU & ~DeclSpec::TQ_atomic & ~DeclSpec::TQ_unaligned;
This would probably be easier to read if written as:
unsigned CVR = CVRAU & ~(DeclSpec::TQ_atomic | DeclSpec::TQ_unaligned);
http://reviews.llvm.org/D19654
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D19654: PR27132: Proper mangling for __unaligned qualifier (now with PR27367 fixed)
andreybokhanko created this revision.
andreybokhanko added reviewers: rnk, thakis, majnemer.
andreybokhanko added a subscriber: cfe-commits.
This is exactly same patch as http://reviews.llvm.org/D18596 (already reviewed
and LGTMed by rnk), with a couple of changes to fix PR27367:
* A check for void pointer added to include/clang/AST/Type.h
* A check for void pointer added to lib/Sema/SemaOverload.cpp
* A test (from PR27367) added to test/SemaCXX/MicrosoftExtensions.cpp
Yours,
Andrey
=
Software Engineer
Intel Compiler Team
http://reviews.llvm.org/D19654
Files:
include/clang/AST/Type.h
include/clang/Basic/AddressSpaces.h
include/clang/Basic/Attr.td
include/clang/Sema/DeclSpec.h
include/clang/Sema/Sema.h
lib/AST/MicrosoftMangle.cpp
lib/AST/TypePrinter.cpp
lib/Parse/ParseDecl.cpp
lib/Parse/ParseTentative.cpp
lib/Sema/DeclSpec.cpp
lib/Sema/SemaCodeComplete.cpp
lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp
lib/Sema/SemaDeclObjC.cpp
lib/Sema/SemaExpr.cpp
lib/Sema/SemaOverload.cpp
lib/Sema/SemaType.cpp
test/CodeGenCXX/mangle-ms-cxx11.cpp
test/Sema/MicrosoftExtensions.c
test/Sema/address_spaces.c
test/Sema/invalid-assignment-constant-address-space.c
test/SemaCXX/MicrosoftExtensions.cpp
Index: lib/Parse/ParseDecl.cpp
===
--- lib/Parse/ParseDecl.cpp
+++ lib/Parse/ParseDecl.cpp
@@ -609,7 +609,6 @@
case tok::kw___ptr64:
case tok::kw___w64:
case tok::kw___ptr32:
-case tok::kw___unaligned:
case tok::kw___sptr:
case tok::kw___uptr: {
IdentifierInfo *AttrName = Tok.getIdentifierInfo();
@@ -3087,6 +3086,11 @@
break;
}
+case tok::kw___unaligned:
+ isInvalid = DS.SetTypeQual(DeclSpec::TQ_unaligned, Loc, PrevSpec, DiagID,
+ getLangOpts());
+ break;
+
case tok::kw___sptr:
case tok::kw___uptr:
case tok::kw___ptr64:
@@ -3097,7 +3101,6 @@
case tok::kw___fastcall:
case tok::kw___thiscall:
case tok::kw___vectorcall:
-case tok::kw___unaligned:
ParseMicrosoftTypeAttributes(DS.getAttributes());
continue;
@@ -4791,6 +4794,10 @@
ParseOpenCLQualifiers(DS.getAttributes());
break;
+case tok::kw___unaligned:
+ isInvalid = DS.SetTypeQual(DeclSpec::TQ_unaligned, Loc, PrevSpec, DiagID,
+ getLangOpts());
+ break;
case tok::kw___uptr:
// GNU libc headers in C mode use '__uptr' as an identifer which conflicts
// with the MS modifier keyword.
@@ -4808,7 +4815,6 @@
case tok::kw___fastcall:
case tok::kw___thiscall:
case tok::kw___vectorcall:
-case tok::kw___unaligned:
if (AttrReqs & AR_DeclspecAttributesParsed) {
ParseMicrosoftTypeAttributes(DS.getAttributes());
continue;
@@ -5031,7 +5037,8 @@
DS.getConstSpecLoc(),
DS.getVolatileSpecLoc(),
DS.getRestrictSpecLoc(),
-DS.getAtomicSpecLoc()),
+DS.getAtomicSpecLoc(),
+DS.getUnalignedSpecLoc()),
DS.getAttributes(),
SourceLocation());
else
Index: lib/Parse/ParseTentative.cpp
===
--- lib/Parse/ParseTentative.cpp
+++ lib/Parse/ParseTentative.cpp
@@ -833,7 +833,7 @@
// '(' abstract-declarator ')'
if (Tok.isOneOf(tok::kw___attribute, tok::kw___declspec, tok::kw___cdecl,
tok::kw___stdcall, tok::kw___fastcall, tok::kw___thiscall,
- tok::kw___vectorcall, tok::kw___unaligned))
+ tok::kw___vectorcall))
return TPResult::True; // attributes indicate declaration
TPResult TPR = TryParseDeclarator(mayBeAbstract, mayHaveIdentifier);
if (TPR != TPResult::Ambiguous)
Index: lib/AST/MicrosoftMangle.cpp
===
--- lib/AST/MicrosoftMangle.cpp
+++ lib/AST/MicrosoftMangle.cpp
@@ -1444,6 +1444,9 @@
(PointeeType.isNull() || !PointeeType->isFunctionType()))
Out << 'E';
+ if (!PointeeType.isNull() && PointeeType.getLocalQualifiers().hasUnaligned())
+Out << 'F';
+
if (HasRestrict)
Out << 'I';
}
@@ -1577,6 +1580,8 @@
}
break;
case QMM_Result:
+// Presence of __unaligned qualifier shouldn't affect mangling here.
+Quals.removeUnaligned();
if ((!IsPointer && Quals) || isa(T)) {
Out << '?';
mangleQualifiers(Quals, false);
Index: lib/AST/TypePrinter.cpp
===
--- lib/AST/TypePrinter.cpp
+++ lib/AST/TypePrinter.cpp
@@ -1592,6 +1592,12 @@
AppendTypeQualList(OS, quals, Policy.LangOpts.C99);
add
