steakhal added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/Inputs/std-c-library-functions.h:1-2
+typedef typeof(sizeof(int)) size_t;
+typedef signed long ssize_t;
+typedef struct {
----------------
donat.nagy wrote:
> balazske wrote:
> > steakhal wrote:
> > > balazske wrote:
> > > > steakhal wrote:
> > > > > `ssize_t`'s size should match the size of `size_t`. In this
> > > > > implementation, it would be true only if `size_t` is `long`.
> > > > >
> > > > I could not find a working way of defining the type in that way (there
> > > > is no `__sizte_t`). The current definition should work well in the test
> > > > code, the property of being the same size is supposedly not used in the
> > > > tests. The previous definition was not better than this (and different
> > > > in different places).
> > > I think [[
> > > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/clang/test/Sema/format-strings-scanf.c#L7-L15
> > > | clang/test/Sema/format-strings-scanf.c ]] uses something like this:
> > > ```lang=C++
> > > typedef __SIZE_TYPE__ size_t;
> > > #define __SSIZE_TYPE__
> > > \
> > > __typeof__(_Generic((__SIZE_TYPE__)0,
> > > \
> > > unsigned long long int : (long long int)0,
> > > \
> > > unsigned long int : (long int)0,
> > > \
> > > unsigned int : (int)0,
> > > \
> > > unsigned short : (short)0,
> > > \
> > > unsigned char : (signed char)0))
> > > typedef __SSIZE_TYPE__ ssize_t;
> > > ```
> > This may work (probably not on all platforms) but still I think in this
> > context it is only important that we have a type called `ssize_t` and it is
> > signed, it is less important that it is exactly the correct type. Other
> > types in the same header are not exact, and `ssize_t` in other test code
> > (in Analysis tests) is defined not in this way.
> I agree that we don't need that `_Generic` magic in this particular test
> file. If we want consistency between the sizes of `size_t` and `ssize_t` then
> you may define them as e.g. just `unsigned long long` and `long long` -- but
> I think even that consideration is overkill.
Whatever. My problem is that this is a header. It should be included from
individual test files. And test files are the place where the author decides if
they want to pin the test to a specific target to make assumptions about sizes
of types or signedness for example. So my concern is that the current form of
theader is not portable, hence it should be includes from tests where the
target is pinned to x86 linux. However, we dontenforce this in any way ormake
it portable.
Having an ifdef check and error out if the target is not what we expect would
be suboptimal as premerge bots might only run on only x86 linux. (On second
thought there are probably windows bots so with caee it might be not as a bit
issue). I hope I clarified my concerns.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D149158/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D149158
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
