On 1/4/17 2:52 AM, Dylan McKay wrote:
I've just raised a bug here
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=31530
> What's necessary for sign-off? Should I ping the reviewer (Richard
Smith) again?
I think so long as Richard or someone else who actively works on Clang
signs off. Perhaps somebody else is keen to review?
On the other hand, I can review it and then ask if there aren't any
objections to it being in-tree within a few days, I can commit it.
LGTM
Jon
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 7:20 PM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj
<senthilkumar.selva...@microchip.com
<mailto:senthilkumar.selva...@microchip.com>> wrote:
Dylan McKay writes:
> Did you get the BugZilla account sorted Senthil?
Nope, direct email also didn't help. Can you please file a bug with
Title:
UINT16_TYPE and INT16_TYPE are defined as short instead of int for AVR
Description:
UINT16_TYPE and INT16_TYPE are implicitly defined by the
preprocessor
to the short type, rather than int. While shorts and ints are both
16 bits wide on the avr, gcc picks ints to represent 16 bits
wherever
possible, and picking short can cause issues with C++ name mangling
(see https://reviews.llvm.org/D27123#615854
<https://reviews.llvm.org/D27123#615854>). Therefore, clang should
define the two types to short.
Clang's
lib/Frontend/InitPreprocessor.cpp::DefineExactWidthIntType does not
use TargetInfo::getIntTypeByWidth. Instead,
InitializePredefinedMacros calls
the function with the specific type
(SignedShort/UnsignedShort), because
getShortWidth() > getCharWidth(), but getIntWidth() ==
getShortWidth().
What's necessary for sign-off? Should I ping the reviewer (Richard
Smith) again?
Regards
Senthil
--
Jon Roelofs
jonat...@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery / Mentor Embedded
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
