MaskRay accepted this revision. MaskRay added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CGDebugInfo.cpp:3117 + llvm::APSInt Value = Enum->getInitVal(); + Value.setIsSigned(IsSigned); + Enumerators.push_back(DBuilder.createEnumerator(Enum->getName(), Value)); ---------------- dblaikie wrote: > rnk wrote: > > rnk wrote: > > > dblaikie wrote: > > > > rnk wrote: > > > > > dblaikie wrote: > > > > > > Is the value already signed appropriately? > > > > > > > > > > > > Removing this line of code (and the `bool IsSigned` variable, so it > > > > > > doesn't break `-Werror=unused-variable`) doesn't cause any tests to > > > > > > fail, that I can see. > > > > > I'm afraid it might not be NFC. I took the cautious approach of > > > > > trying to leave things exactly as they were. Enums in C can have > > > > > surprisingly different behavior, IIRC. > > > > I'd rather not leave in haunted-graveyard-y code like that. > > > > > > > > Could we assert that Value.getIsSigned == IsSigned? Then if there's a > > > > case where it isn't we'll have a test case/justification for the code? > > > I convinced myself that the signed-ness of the APSInt in the > > > EnumConstantDecl always matches by looking at this code here: > > > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/aee8457b8d4123d087c45aef95d14f24934fed53/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp#L18379 > > > > > > So far as I can tell, we always run that code, no matter whether > > > LangOpts.CPlusPlus is set or not. That's enough for me. > > Oh, I was wrong, your suggested change *does* break > > clang/test/CodeGen/enum2.c. My caution was warranted. :) > Hrm, still not quite clear on what's going on. Seems like GCC actually does > things differently - it does produce DWARF using the signedness of the > literal to dictate the signedness of the enumerator, which seems inconsistent > with the comment ("This matches the DWARF produced by GCC for C enums with > positive enumerators" - well it's consistent with that statement (for > positive enumerators) but inconsistent with what happens if you mix sign of > enumerators - then GCC uses different encodings, but Clang doesn't > (regardless of the representational difference - with isSigned true or false)) > > Looks like LLVM, for DWARF at least, uses the signedness of the enumeration's > type ( > https://github.com/llvm-mirror/llvm/blob/2c4ca6832fa6b306ee6a7010bfb80a3f2596f824/lib/CodeGen/AsmPrinter/DwarfUnit.cpp#L1406-L1427 > ). (the BTF backend seems to respect the individual signedness) > > So... mixed feelings? For DWARF it looks like the signed-ness representation > doesn't matter/is ignored and only the signedness of the enumeration is used. > GCC respects the signedness of different expressions - but I don't know that > that's a good choice either, seems like it should represent the value of the > enumerator proper, not of the expression used to initialize the enumerator. > > And also - what's the deal with the APInt encoding? It looks like something > in the IR printing correctly encodes the signedness of the APInt value: > ``` > $ clang-tot enum.c -g -c -emit-llvm -S -o - | grep Enumerator > !6 = !DIEnumerator(name: "A", value: 0) > !7 = !DIEnumerator(name: "B", value: -1) > ``` > (this is the output without the per-enumerator signedness initialization) > So how's that working & why do we carry the extra signedness in a boolean as > well? > > Sorry, feel free to ignore all this if it's not worth the rabbit-hole. I'm > generally OK with this preserving the existing behavior - but it does raise a > bunch of questions for me. > > > Seems like GCC actually does things differently Can you elaborate a bit with an example? I played with this a bit and GCC does appear to behave similar to clang with this patch. Because of disallowed C++11 narrowing, I cannot place an signed enumerator in a enumeration type with an unsigned underlying type: GCC error: enumerator value ‘-3’ is outside the range of underlying type ‘long unsigned int’ (clang can suppress this with -Wno-c++11-narrowing/-Wno-narrowing) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D106585/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D106585 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
