There is currently no support in MSVC for using i128 as an integer
literal suffix. In fact, there appears to be no evidence that they have
ever supported this feature in any of their compilers. This was an over
generalization of their actual feature and is a nasty source of bugs.
Why is it a source of bugs? Because most code in clang expects that
evaluation of an integer constant expression won't give them something
that 'long long' can't represent. Instead of providing a meaningful
feature, i128 gives us cute ways of exploding the compiler.
llvm-svn: 243243
Switch some warnings over to errors which should never have been warnings
in the first place. (Also, a minor fix to the preprocessor rules for
integer literals while I'm here.)
llvm-svn: 186903
function arguments and arguments for variadic functions are of a particular
type which is determined by some other argument to the same function call.
Usecases include:
* MPI library implementations, where these attributes enable checking that
buffer type matches the passed MPI_Datatype;
* for HDF5 library there is a similar usecase as MPI;
* checking types of variadic functions' arguments for functions like
fcntl() and ioctl().
llvm-svn: 162067
a type specifier and can be combined with unsigned. This allows libstdc++4.7 to
be used with clang in c++98 mode.
Several other changes are still required for libstdc++4.7 to work with clang in
c++11 mode.
llvm-svn: 153999
- This is designed to make it obvious that %clang_cc1 is a "test variable"
which is substituted. It is '%clang_cc1' instead of '%clang -cc1' because it
can be useful to redefine what gets run as 'clang -cc1' (for example, to set
a default target).
llvm-svn: 91446
Currently only used for 128-bit integers.
Note that we can't use the fixed-width integer types for other integer
modes without other changes because glibc headers redefines (u)int*_t
and friends using the mode attribute. For example, this means that uint64_t
has to be compatible with unsigned __attribute((mode(DI))), and
uint64_t is currently defined to long long. And I have a feeling we'll
run into issues if we try to define uint64_t as something which isn't
either long or long long.
This doesn't get the alignment right in most cases, including
the 128-bit integer case; I'll file a PR shortly. The gist of the issue
is that the targets don't really expose the information necessary to
figure out the alignment outside of the target description, so there's a
non-trivial amount of work involved in getting it working right. That
said, the alignment used is conservative, so the only issue with the
current implementation is ABI compatibility.
This makes it trivial to add some sort of "bitwidth" attribute to make
arbitrary-width integers; I'll do that in a followup.
We could also use this for stuff like the following for compatibility
with gcc, but I have a feeling it would be a better idea for clang to be
consistent between C and C++ modes rather than follow gcc's example for
C mode.
struct {unsigned long long x : 33;} x;
unsigned long long a(void) {return x.x+1;}
llvm-svn: 64434
David Majnemer