rsmith added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaChecking.cpp:433
+
+ llvm::StringRef getFormatSpecifier(QualType T) {
+ if (auto *BT = T->getAs<BuiltinType>()) {
----------------
yihanaa wrote:
> rsmith wrote:
> > rsmith wrote:
> > > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > > yihanaa wrote:
> > > > > I think this is better maintained in "clang/AST/FormatString.h". For
> > > > > example analyze_printf::PrintfSpecifier can get format specifier,
> > > > > what do you all think about?
> > > > +1 to this suggestion -- my hope is that we could generalize it more
> > > > then as I notice there are missing specifiers for things like intmax_t,
> > > > size_t, ptrdiff_t, _Decimal types, etc. Plus, that will hopefully make
> > > > it easier for __builtin_dump_struct to benefit when new format
> > > > specifiers are added, such as ones for printing a _BitInt.
> > > I am somewhat uncertain: every one of these is making arbitrary choices
> > > about how to format the value, so it's not clear to me that this is
> > > general logic rather than something specific to `__builtin_dump_struct`.
> > > For example, using `%f` rather than one of the myriad other ways of
> > > formatting `double` is somewhat arbitrary. Using `%s` for any `const
> > > char*` is *extremely* arbitrary and will be wrong and will cause crashes
> > > in some cases, but it may be the pragmatically correct choice for a
> > > dumping utility. A general-purpose mechanism would use `%p` for all kinds
> > > of pointer.
> > >
> > > We could perhaps factor out the formatting for cases where there is a
> > > clear canonical default formatting, such as for integer types and
> > > probably `%p` for pointers, then call that from here with some
> > > special-casing, but without a second consumer for that functionality it's
> > > really not clear to me what form it should take.
> > I went ahead and did this, mostly to match concurrent changes to the old
> > implementation. There are a few cases where our existing "guess a format
> > specifier" logic does the wrong thing for dumping purposes, which I've
> > explicitly handled -- things like wanting to dump a `char` / `signed char`
> > / `unsigned char` member as a number rather than as a (potentially
> > non-printable or whitespace) character.
> When I was patching that old implementation, I found that for uint8_t,
> int8_t, Clang's existing "guess a format specifier" logic would treat the
> value as an integer, but for unsigned char, signed char, char types, it would
> Treat it as a character, please look at this example (
> https://godbolt.org/z/ooqn4468T ), I guess this existing logic may have made
> some special judgment.
Yeah. I think in the case where we see some random call to `printf`, `%c` is
probably the right thing to guess here, but it doesn't seem appropriate to me
to use this in a dumping routine. If we could dump as `'x'` for printable
characters and as `'\xAB'` for everything else, that'd be great, but `printf`
can't do that itself and I'm not sure we want to be injecting calls to
`isprint` or whatever to make that work. Dumping as an integer always seems
like it's probably the least-bad option.
Somewhat related: I wonder if we should use `"\"%s\""` instead of simply `"%s"`
when dumping a `const char*`. That's not ideal but probably clearer than the
current dump output.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D124221/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D124221
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
