This adds -no-opaque-pointers to clang tests whose output will
change when opaque pointers are enabled by default. This is
intended to be part of the migration approach described in
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/enabling-opaque-pointers-by-default/61322/9.
The patch has been produced by replacing %clang_cc1 with
%clang_cc1 -no-opaque-pointers for tests that fail with opaque
pointers enabled. Worth noting that this doesn't cover all tests,
there's a remaining ~40 tests not using %clang_cc1 that will need
a followup change.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D123115
A significant number of our tests in C accidentally use functions
without prototypes. This patch converts the function signatures to have
a prototype for the situations where the test is not specific to K&R C
declarations. e.g.,
void func();
becomes
void func(void);
This is the eleventh batch of tests being updated (there are a
significant number of other tests left to be updated).
Part of the _BitInt feature in C2x
(http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2763.pdf) is a new
macro in limits.h named BITINT_MAXWIDTH that can be used to determine
the maximum width of a bit-precise integer type. This macro must expand
to a value that is at least as large as ULLONG_WIDTH.
This adds an implementation-defined macro named __BITINT_MAXWIDTH__ to
specify that value, which is used by limits.h for the standard macro.
This also limits the maximum bit width to 128 bits because backends do
not currently support all mathematical operations (such as division) on
wider types yet. This maximum is expected to be increased in the future.
WG14 adopted the _ExtInt feature from Clang for C23, but renamed the
type to be _BitInt. This patch does the vast majority of the work to
rename _ExtInt to _BitInt, which accounts for most of its size. The new
type is exposed in older C modes and all C++ modes as a conforming
extension. However, there are functional changes worth calling out:
* Deprecates _ExtInt with a fix-it to help users migrate to _BitInt.
* Updates the mangling for the type.
* Updates the documentation and adds a release note to warn users what
is going on.
* Adds new diagnostics for use of _BitInt to call out when it's used as
a Clang extension or as a pre-C23 compatibility concern.
* Adds new tests for the new diagnostic behaviors.
I want to call out the ABI break specifically. We do not believe that
this break will cause a significant imposition for early adopters of
the feature, and so this is being done as a full break. If it turns out
there are critical uses where recompilation is not an option for some
reason, we can consider using ABI tags to ease the transition.
SelectionDAG will promote illegal types up to a power of 2 before
splitting down to a legal type. This will create an IntegerType
with a bit width that must be <= MAX_INT_BITS. This places an
effective upper limit on any type of 2^23 so that we don't try
create a 2^24 type.
I considered putting a fatal error somewhere in the path from
TargetLowering::getTypeConversion down to IntegerType::get, but
limiting the type in IR seemed better.
This breaks backwards compatibility with IR that is using a really
large type. I suspect such IR is going to be very rare due to the
the compile time costs such a type likely incurs.
Prevents the ICE in PR51829.
Reviewed By: efriedma, aaron.ballman
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109721
The _ExtInt(1) in getTypeForMem was hitting the bool logic for expanding
to an 8 bit value. The result was an assert, or store i1 %0, i8* %2, align 1
since the parameter IS an i1. This patch changes the 'forMem' test to
exclude ext-int from the bool test.
I'm currently auditing all of the calling convention implications of
_ExtInt for all platforms, so splitting them up into their own test will
make this a much easier task to organize.
After speaking with Craig Topper about some recent defects, he pointed
out that _ExtInts should be passed indirectly if larger than the largest
int register, and like ints when smaller than that. This patch
implements that.
Note that this changed the way vaargs worked quite a bit, but they still
work.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78785
This reverts commit 61ba1481e2.
I'm reverting this because it breaks the lldb build with
incomplete switch coverage warnings. I would fix it forward,
but am not familiar enough with lldb to determine the correct
fix.
lldb/source/Plugins/TypeSystem/Clang/TypeSystemClang.cpp:3958:11: error: enumeration values 'DependentExtInt' and 'ExtInt' not handled in switch [-Werror,-Wswitch]
switch (qual_type->getTypeClass()) {
^
lldb/source/Plugins/TypeSystem/Clang/TypeSystemClang.cpp:4633:11: error: enumeration values 'DependentExtInt' and 'ExtInt' not handled in switch [-Werror,-Wswitch]
switch (qual_type->getTypeClass()) {
^
lldb/source/Plugins/TypeSystem/Clang/TypeSystemClang.cpp:4889:11: error: enumeration values 'DependentExtInt' and 'ExtInt' not handled in switch [-Werror,-Wswitch]
switch (qual_type->getTypeClass()) {
Introduction/Motivation:
LLVM-IR supports integers of non-power-of-2 bitwidth, in the iN syntax.
Integers of non-power-of-two aren't particularly interesting or useful
on most hardware, so much so that no language in Clang has been
motivated to expose it before.
However, in the case of FPGA hardware normal integer types where the
full bitwidth isn't used, is extremely wasteful and has severe
performance/space concerns. Because of this, Intel has introduced this
functionality in the High Level Synthesis compiler[0]
under the name "Arbitrary Precision Integer" (ap_int for short). This
has been extremely useful and effective for our users, permitting them
to optimize their storage and operation space on an architecture where
both can be extremely expensive.
We are proposing upstreaming a more palatable version of this to the
community, in the form of this proposal and accompanying patch. We are
proposing the syntax _ExtInt(N). We intend to propose this to the WG14
committee[1], and the underscore-capital seems like the active direction
for a WG14 paper's acceptance. An alternative that Richard Smith
suggested on the initial review was __int(N), however we believe that
is much less acceptable by WG14. We considered _Int, however _Int is
used as an identifier in libstdc++ and there is no good way to fall
back to an identifier (since _Int(5) is indistinguishable from an
unnamed initializer of a template type named _Int).
[0]https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/software/programmable/quartus-prime/hls-compiler.html)
[1]http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2472.pdf
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73967
Nikita Popov