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

Reply via email to