https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35763
Bug ID: 35763
Summary: -O0 bug: long bitfields triggering incorrect code
Product: new-bugs
Version: trunk
Hardware: PC
OS: All
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P
Component: new bugs
Assignee: unassignedb...@nondot.org
Reporter: babo...@gmail.com
CC: llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org
clang trunk, x86_64, rev321482.
> cat f.cpp
struct S {
short m0;
unsigned long long int m2 : 21;
short m3 : 16;
short m5 : 17;
short : 16;
};
S z = {-724, 388702ULL, 26720, 2792};
unsigned long long int tf_3_var_136 = 0;
void foo() {
tf_3_var_136 = ((unsigned short)(z.m0 | z.m2));
z.m5 = 0;
}
int main() {
foo();
__builtin_printf("%llu\n", tf_3_var_136);
return 0;
}
> clang++ -w f.cpp -o outc; g++ -w f.cpp -o outg; ./outc; ./outg
3999203198
65406
Note that clang 5.0 also produces correct result (as gcc in the example above).
Slight massaging of the test case make the bug go. You may notice that one of
the bit fields is longer than "base" type, i.e. short : 17. But this is a valid
C++, according to the standard bits after the "base" type size are just
"padding".
Anyway, effects triggered by this example are definitely considered as a bug by
regular clang users.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug._______________________________________________
llvm-bugs mailing list
llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
