erichkeane added a comment. So the idea of the SEMA check is right, but it ultimately isn't correct. Integers up to 128 can be called, as long as you use compiler-rt (--rtlib=compiler-rt), see https://godbolt.org/z/JDXZG_.
However, 129 bits results in a crash in LLVM: https://godbolt.org/z/q432t_ When you change this, please add tests for 128/127 bit as well. AND the new error message needs a SEMA test as well. ================ Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td:7939 "to a non-const integer (%0 invalid)">; +def err_overflow_builtin_extint_size : Error< + "_ExtInt argument larger than 64-bits to overflow builtin requires runtime " ---------------- Mentioning target-specific support here seems incorrect. @rjmccall I cannot think of a better wording, can you? ================ Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaChecking.cpp:339 + : Arg.get()->getType()->getAs<PointerType>()->getPointeeType(); + if (Ty->isExtIntType() && S.getASTContext().getIntWidth(Ty) > 64) { + S.Diag(Arg.get()->getBeginLoc(), diag::err_overflow_builtin_extint_size) ---------------- I'll explain it below, but while I think this is the right IDEA, I think >64 is wrong. It should be >128. Second, this requires a SEMA test. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D81420/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D81420 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
