Commit Graph

7 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Muhammad Usman Shahid 76476efd68 Rewording "static_assert" diagnostics
This patch rewords the static assert diagnostic output. Failing a
_Static_assert in C should not report that static_assert failed. This
changes the wording to be more like GCC and uses "static assertion"
when possible instead of hard coding the name. This also changes some
instances of 'static_assert' to instead be based on the token in the
source code.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129048
2022-07-25 07:22:54 -04:00
Erich Keane 1da3119025 Revert "Rewording the "static_assert" to static assertion"
Looks like we again are going to have problems with libcxx tests that
are overly specific in their dependency on clang's diagnostics.

This reverts commit 6542cb55a3.
2022-07-21 06:40:14 -07:00
Muhammad Usman Shahid 6542cb55a3 Rewording the "static_assert" to static assertion
This patch is basically the rewording of the static assert statement's
output(error) on screen after failing. Failing a _Static_assert in C
should not report that static_assert failed. It’d probably be better to
reword the diagnostic to be more like GCC and say “static assertion”
failed in both C and C++.

consider a c file having code

_Static_assert(0, "oh no!");

In clang the output is like:

<source>:1:1: error: static_assert failed: oh no!
_Static_assert(0, "oh no!");
^              ~
1 error generated.
Compiler returned: 1

Thus here the "static_assert" is not much good, it will be better to
reword it to the "static assertion failed" to more generic. as the gcc
prints as:

<source>:1:1: error: static assertion failed: "oh no!"
    1 | _Static_assert(0, "oh no!");
          | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
          Compiler returned: 1

The above can also be seen here. This patch is about rewording
the static_assert to static assertion.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129048
2022-07-21 06:34:14 -07:00
Mitch Phillips 041d4012e4 Revert "Rewording "static_assert" diagnostics"
This reverts commit b7e77ff25f.

Reason: Broke sanitizer builds bots + libcxx. 'static assertion
expression is not an integral constant expression'. More details
available in the Phabricator review: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129048
2022-07-14 10:59:20 -07:00
Muhammad Usman Shahid b7e77ff25f Rewording "static_assert" diagnostics
This patch rewords the static assert diagnostic output. Failing a
_Static_assert in C should not report that static_assert failed. This
changes the wording to be more like GCC and uses "static assertion"
when possible instead of hard coding the name. This also changes some
instances of 'static_assert' to instead be based on the token in the
source code.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129048
2022-07-14 07:47:37 -04:00
Chandler Carruth b29a743891 [complex] Teach the other two binary operators on complex numbers (==
and !=) to support mixed complex and real operand types.

This requires removing an assert from SemaChecking, and adding support
both to the constant evaluator and the code generator to synthesize the
imaginary part when needed. This seemed somewhat cleaner than having
just the comparison operators force real-to-complex conversions.

I've added test cases for these operations. I'm really terrified that
there were *no* tests in-tree which exercised this.

This turned up when trying to build R after my change to the complex
type lowering.

llvm-svn: 219570
2014-10-11 11:03:30 +00:00
Chandler Carruth a216cad0fc [complex] Teach Clang to preserve different-type operands to arithmetic
operators where one type is a C complex type, and to emit both the
efficient and correct implementation for complex arithmetic according to
C11 Annex G using this extra information.

For both multiply and divide the old code was writing a long-hand
reduced version of the math without any of the special handling of inf
and NaN recommended by the standard here. Instead of putting more
complexity here, this change does what GCC does which is to emit
a libcall for the fully general case.

However, the old code also failed to do the proper minimization of the
set of operations when there was a mixed complex and real operation. In
those cases, C provides a spec for much more minimal operations that are
valid. Clang now emits the exact suggested operations. This change isn't
*just* about performance though, without minimizing these operations, we
again lose the correct handling of infinities and NaNs. It is critical
that this happen in the frontend based on assymetric type operands to
complex math operations.

The performance implications of this change aren't trivial either. I've
run a set of benchmarks in Eigen, an open source mathematics library
that makes heavy use of complex. While a few have slowed down due to the
libcall being introduce, most sped up and some by a huge amount: up to
100% and 140%.

In order to make all of this work, also match the algorithm in the
constant evaluator to the one in the runtime library. Currently it is
a broken port of the simplifications from C's Annex G to the long-hand
formulation of the algorithm.

Splitting this patch up is very hard because none of this works without
the AST change to preserve non-complex operands. Sorry for the enormous
change.

Follow-up changes will include support for sinking the libcalls onto
cold paths in common cases and fastmath improvements to allow more
aggressive backend folding.

Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D5698

llvm-svn: 219557
2014-10-11 00:57:18 +00:00