I've just raised a bug here https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=31530
> What's necessary for sign-off? Should I ping the reviewer (Richard Smith) again? I think so long as Richard or someone else who actively works on Clang signs off. Perhaps somebody else is keen to review? On the other hand, I can review it and then ask if there aren't any objections to it being in-tree within a few days, I can commit it. On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 7:20 PM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj < senthilkumar.selva...@microchip.com> wrote: > > Dylan McKay writes: > > > Did you get the BugZilla account sorted Senthil? > > Nope, direct email also didn't help. Can you please file a bug with > > Title: > > UINT16_TYPE and INT16_TYPE are defined as short instead of int for AVR > > Description: > > UINT16_TYPE and INT16_TYPE are implicitly defined by the preprocessor > to the short type, rather than int. While shorts and ints are both > 16 bits wide on the avr, gcc picks ints to represent 16 bits wherever > possible, and picking short can cause issues with C++ name mangling > (see https://reviews.llvm.org/D27123#615854). Therefore, clang should > define the two types to short. > > Clang's lib/Frontend/InitPreprocessor.cpp::DefineExactWidthIntType > does not > use TargetInfo::getIntTypeByWidth. Instead, > InitializePredefinedMacros calls > the function with the specific type (SignedShort/UnsignedShort), because > getShortWidth() > getCharWidth(), but getIntWidth() == > getShortWidth(). > > > What's necessary for sign-off? Should I ping the reviewer (Richard Smith) > again? > > Regards > Senthil >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
