AaronBallman wrote:
Ping
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/133472
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/AaronBallman created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/133472
This feature largely models the same behavior as in C++11. It is technically a
breaking change between C99 and C11, so the paper is not being backported to
older language modes.
One difference between C++
https://github.com/AaronBallman updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/133472
>From f9268b3a331fd8caf2440d742a1f084c0f9648ce Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Aaron Ballman
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 13:01:58 -0400
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] [C11] Implement WG14 N1285 (temporary lifetimes)
This
github-actions[bot] wrote:
:warning: C/C++ code formatter, clang-format found issues in your code.
:warning:
You can test this locally with the following command:
``bash
git-clang-format --diff HEAD~1 HEAD --extensions c,h,cpp --
clang/test/C/C11/n1285_1.c clang/lib/CodeGen/CGDe
frederick-vs-ja wrote:
> (LMK if I've got that wrong!) Given that, how is the C11 change a breaking
> change? It seems like the C99 rule was just bogus, and we should forget it
> ever existed?
IIUC, the "breaking change" is that in C99 a pointer value to a temporary array
element never become
@@ -0,0 +1,212 @@
+// NOTE: Assertions have been autogenerated by utils/update_cc_test_checks.py
UTC_ARGS: --version 5
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c99 -Wno-dangling -emit-llvm -o - %s | FileCheck %s
--check-prefix=C99
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c11 -Wno-dangling -emit-llvm -o - %s |
https://github.com/efriedma-quic approved this pull request.
LGTM
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/133472
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ void testva (int n, ...) {
va_start(ap,n);
// CHECK: [[AP:%[a-z0-9]+]] = alloca ptr, align 4
// CHECK: [[V5:%[a-z0-9]+]] = alloca %struct.x, align 4
- // CHECK: [[TMP:%[a-z0-9]+]] = alloca [4 x i32], align 4
+ // CHECK: [[TMP:%[a-z0-9\.]+]] = alloca [4
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ void testva (int n, ...) {
va_start(ap,n);
// CHECK: [[AP:%[a-z0-9]+]] = alloca ptr, align 4
// CHECK: [[V5:%[a-z0-9]+]] = alloca %struct.x, align 4
- // CHECK: [[TMP:%[a-z0-9]+]] = alloca [4 x i32], align 4
+ // CHECK: [[TMP:%[a-z0-9\.]+]] = alloca [4
frederick-vs-ja wrote:
> That is unimplementable without dynamically allocating and leaking memory,
> which we certainly should not do and which nobody would thank us for doing.
Ah, I think
[DR452](https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/issues/c11c17/issue0452.html)
(adding "Such an object n
https://github.com/AaronBallman edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/133472
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/AaronBallman edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/133472
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/AaronBallman edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/133472
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/AaronBallman edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/133472
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/AaronBallman updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/133472
>From f9268b3a331fd8caf2440d742a1f084c0f9648ce Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Aaron Ballman
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 13:01:58 -0400
Subject: [PATCH 1/9] [C11] Implement WG14 N1285 (temporary lifetimes)
This
@@ -0,0 +1,212 @@
+// NOTE: Assertions have been autogenerated by utils/update_cc_test_checks.py
UTC_ARGS: --version 5
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c99 -Wno-dangling -emit-llvm -o - %s | FileCheck %s
--check-prefix=C99
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c11 -Wno-dangling -emit-llvm -o - %s |
jyknight wrote:
- In C89: it's impossible to get the address of a temporary struct, so the
lifetime is irrelevant.
- In C99: you now can get the address (from an array subobject), but the
lifetime was defined as "until the next sequence point". This made it
technically illegal to access even n
https://github.com/AaronBallman updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/133472
>From f9268b3a331fd8caf2440d742a1f084c0f9648ce Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Aaron Ballman
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 13:01:58 -0400
Subject: [PATCH 1/8] [C11] Implement WG14 N1285 (temporary lifetimes)
This
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ void testva (int n, ...) {
va_start(ap,n);
// CHECK: [[AP:%[a-z0-9]+]] = alloca ptr, align 4
// CHECK: [[V5:%[a-z0-9]+]] = alloca %struct.x, align 4
- // CHECK: [[TMP:%[a-z0-9]+]] = alloca [4 x i32], align 4
+ // CHECK: [[TMP:%[a-z0-9\.]+]] = alloca [4
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ void testva (int n, ...) {
va_start(ap,n);
// CHECK: [[AP:%[a-z0-9]+]] = alloca ptr, align 4
// CHECK: [[V5:%[a-z0-9]+]] = alloca %struct.x, align 4
- // CHECK: [[TMP:%[a-z0-9]+]] = alloca [4 x i32], align 4
+ // CHECK: [[TMP:%[a-z0-9\.]+]] = alloca [4
@@ -0,0 +1,212 @@
+// NOTE: Assertions have been autogenerated by utils/update_cc_test_checks.py
UTC_ARGS: --version 5
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c99 -Wno-dangling -emit-llvm -o - %s | FileCheck %s
--check-prefix=C99
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c11 -Wno-dangling -emit-llvm -o - %s |
https://github.com/AaronBallman updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/133472
>From f9268b3a331fd8caf2440d742a1f084c0f9648ce Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Aaron Ballman
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 13:01:58 -0400
Subject: [PATCH 1/7] [C11] Implement WG14 N1285 (temporary lifetimes)
This
https://github.com/AaronBallman updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/133472
>From f9268b3a331fd8caf2440d742a1f084c0f9648ce Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Aaron Ballman
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 13:01:58 -0400
Subject: [PATCH 1/6] [C11] Implement WG14 N1285 (temporary lifetimes)
This
https://github.com/AaronBallman updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/133472
>From f9268b3a331fd8caf2440d742a1f084c0f9648ce Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Aaron Ballman
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 13:01:58 -0400
Subject: [PATCH 1/5] [C11] Implement WG14 N1285 (temporary lifetimes)
This
@@ -741,10 +741,11 @@ ExprResult Sema::ImpCastExprToType(Expr *E, QualType Ty,
if (Kind == CK_ArrayToPointerDecay) {
// C++1z [conv.array]: The temporary materialization conversion is applied.
// We also use this to fuel C++ DR1213, which applies to C++11 onwards.
-
https://github.com/AaronBallman updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/133472
>From f9268b3a331fd8caf2440d742a1f084c0f9648ce Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Aaron Ballman
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 13:01:58 -0400
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [C11] Implement WG14 N1285 (temporary lifetimes)
This
@@ -0,0 +1,212 @@
+// NOTE: Assertions have been autogenerated by utils/update_cc_test_checks.py
UTC_ARGS: --version 5
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c99 -Wno-dangling -emit-llvm -o - %s | FileCheck %s
--check-prefix=C99
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c11 -Wno-dangling -emit-llvm -o - %s |
@@ -741,10 +741,11 @@ ExprResult Sema::ImpCastExprToType(Expr *E, QualType Ty,
if (Kind == CK_ArrayToPointerDecay) {
// C++1z [conv.array]: The temporary materialization conversion is applied.
// We also use this to fuel C++ DR1213, which applies to C++11 onwards.
-
AaronBallman wrote:
Note, this will fail in precommit CI due to
`test/CodeGenObjC/strong-in-c-struct.c`. I am posting this PR to see if there
are other failures on Linux platforms that I'm missing locally, and to get an
idea whether folks agree that this is heading in the right direction. I'm
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang-codegen
Author: Aaron Ballman (AaronBallman)
Changes
This feature largely models the same behavior as in C++11. It is technically a
breaking change between C99 and C11, so the paper is not being backported to
older lang
30 matches
Mail list logo
