aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/LangOptions.h:262-264
+ /// Unprototyped integer arguments are extended to 32 bits.
+ ExtendTo32,
+ /// Unprototyped integer arguments are extended to 64 bits.
----------------
The comments aren't quite right as this matters in functions with prototypes as
well (due to variadic arguments). How about "integer arguments are sign or zero
extended to 32/64 bits during default argument promotions."?
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/TargetInfo.h:1415
+ virtual bool supportsExtendIntArgs() const { return false; }
+
----------------
This should get a comment explaining what it does. The name is a bit generic
too (esp given that there's an `_ExtInt` type that sounds like an "extended
int").
Is there anything truly target-specific about the functionality? It seems like
this behavior would be plausibly useful regardless of target architecture.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Driver/Options.td:1432-1433
+ Flags<[CC1Option, NoArgumentUnused]>,
+ HelpText<"Controls how scalar integer arguments are extended in calls"
+ " to unprototyped and varargs functions">,
+ Values<"32,64">,
----------------
It's a bit more conventional to use a trailing whitespace in adjacent string
literals.
================
Comment at: clang/test/CodeGen/extend-arg-64.c:19
+
+int vararg(int, ...);
+
----------------
Can you also add a test for K&R C functions? e.g., `int knr();` `sum = knr(sum,
u32, s32, u16, s16, u8, s8);`
Also, can you show what happens when passing a `long long` and an `_ExtInt`
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D101640/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D101640
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
