These had been the values appropriate for double, not accounting for the fact that long double is now the 80-bit extended type.
The integer LDBL_* values have now all been updated to be correct, as has LDBL_EPSILON. LDBL_MAX and LDBL_MIN are still not correct, because ORCA/C internally processes floating-point constants in the double format, and so the correct values would get rounded to INF and 0, respectively.
Note that the SANE 80-bit extended format is almost like the x87 80-bit extended format used for long double on many modern systems, but not entirely. The difference is that SANE allows the biased exponent field of an extended value (either normalized or denormalized) to be 0, yielding an effective exponent of 0-16383 = -16383. x87 uses an effective exponent of -16382 in these cases (which it considers to be pseudo-denormalized or denormalized), yielding values that are twice as large as the SANE values. This difference causes LDBL_MIN_EXP to be different, and would also cause LDBL_MIN to be different if it could be represented correctly.
This was an alias for double, but it's non-standard and undocumented. Apparently it existed in some other pre-standard compilers, but it's not in any version of standard C, and I can't find any evidence of it being used. Considering the possibility for confusion, I think it's best to remove it.
Previously, the error markers would generally be misaligned in this case, because a tab would expand to no spaces (in ORCA/Shell) or multiple spaces (in most other environments), but the error-printing code would use a single space to try to line up with it.
The solution adopted is just to print tabs in the error lines at the positions where they occur in the source lines. The actual amount of space displayed will depend on the console being used, but in any case it should line up correctly with the source line.
Mainly, this detects errors in several cases where a pointer could inappropriately be used where an arithmetic type was expected. In some cases, other types (e.g. structs) could be used too.
This adds lint bit 5 (a value of 32), which currently enables checking for the following conditions:
*Integer overflow from arithmetic in constant expressions (currently only of type int).
*Invalid constant shift counts (negative, or >= the width of the type)
*Division by (constant) zero.
These (mainly the first two) can be indicative of code that was designed for larger type sizes and needs changes to support 16-bit int.
The following program demonstrates the problem:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void) {
long l = (char)1 - (char)5;
printf("%li\n", l); /* should print -4 */
}
This allows debuggers to stop on the declaration lines, and also provides trace-back information for them if that feature is enabled.
Currently, this applies only to declarations that occur after the first statement in the block. As such, it doesn't change the handling of traditional pre-C99-style declarations at the beginning of a block.
This may be indicative of dubious code in some cases, but it can also have valid use cases that are not easy to modify.
If desired, this could be re-enabled under a separate lint flag (analogous to -Wformat-nonliteral in GCC/Clang, which is available as an option but is not included in -Wformat or -Wall).
It is now stricter about invalid length modifiers. Also, "comp" is accepted where a floating-point type is expected (like the others, it is promoted to extended), and size specifiers are allowed with %n (now pretty much supported in the latest library version).
Mainly, this causes the messages from the format checker to be displayed after the relevant line is printed, along with any other error messages. The wording and formatting of some of the messages is also slightly adjusted, but there should be no substantive change in what is warned about.
Previously, the characters ", /, and ? within string literals were not escaped in #pragma expand output, which could result in them being erroneously interpreted as ending the string literal, starting an escape sequence, or being part of a trigraph (respectively). Also, escape sequences were output in hexadecimal format. Since there is no length limit on hexadecimal escape sequences, this could result in subsequent characters in the string being interpreted as part of the escape sequence.
This fixes the issues by escaping the characters ", /, and ?, and by using three-digit octal escape sequences rather than hexadecimal ones.
*Use a typedef rather than a macro definition for va_list. (The C standards specify that va_list is a type, although this would make a practical difference only if someone #undef'd it.)
*Don't include a semicolon in va_start(), so it expands to an expression rather than a statement. This could make a difference in a construct like "if (...) va_start(...); else ...".
An extra, fourth byte was being generated for the bitfield(s). This would cause all subsequent members of the struct and any enclosing object not to be initialized at the proper locations, which would generally corrupt their values.
The following program illustrates the issue:
#include <stdio.h>
struct X {
int a:9;
int b:9;
int c;
} x = {123,234,12345};
int main(void) {
printf("x.a = %i, x.b = %i, x.b = %i\n", x.a, x.b, x.c);
}
The initialized bytes for the bitfield(s) could wind up improperly being placed after those for the non-bitfield, generally corrupting both values.
The following program illustrates the problem:
#include <stdio.h>
struct X {
int a:9;
int b;
} x = {42,123};
int main(void) {
printf("x.a = %i, x.b = %i\n", x.a, x.b);
}
Note that this code currently permits discarding the const qualifier via such an initialization. That should give a diagnostic, but currently it doesn't in this or various other cases.
The following code (derived from a csmith-generated test case) illustrates the problem:
struct S0 {
const long f4;
};
const struct S0 g_149;
const long *g_311 = &g_149.f4;
This could happen because the left subexpression does not produce a result for use in the enclosing expression, and therefore is not of the form expected by the CSE code.
The following program (derived from a csmith-generated test case) illustrates the problem:
#pragma optimize 16
int main(void) {
int i;
i, (i, 1);
}
There was a bug when storing addresses generated by expressions like &a[i], where a is a global array and i is a variable. In certain cases where the destination location was a local variable that didn't fit in the direct page, the result of the address calculation would be stored to the wrong location on the stack. This failed to give the correct result, and could also sometimes cause crashes or other problems due to stack corruption.
The following program (derived from a csmith-generated test case) illustrates the issues:
#pragma optimize 1
long g_87[5];
static int g_242 = 4;
int main(void) {
char l_298[256];
long *l_284[3] = {0, 0, &g_87[g_242]};
return l_284[2]-g_87; /* should be 4 */
}
Specifically:
*The result of pointer arithmetic (or equivalent operations like &a[i]) always has pointer type.
*Array types decay to integer types in the context of comparison operations, so it is legal to compare two differently-sized arrays with the same element type.
The following program (partially derived from a csmith-generated test case) illustrates the issues:
int main(void) {
int a[2], b[10];
if (a == b) ; /* legal */
if (&a[1] != &b[0]) ; /* legal */
return sizeof(&b[1]); /* Should be sizeof(int*), i.e. 4 on GS */
}
The code would trash other data on the stack, which could corrupt other variables and in some cases lead to crashes.
The following program (derived from a csmith-generated test case) shows the problem:
#pragma optimize -1
int main(void) {
char arr[256] = {0};
char l_565[3][2] = {{3,4}, {5,6}, {7,8}};
l_565[0][0]++;
return l_565[0][0];
}
The following program (derived from a csmith-generated test case) demonstrates the crash:
#pragma optimize 8+64
#include <stdio.h>
long g = 0;
int main (void) {
long l = 0x10305070;
printf("%08lx\n", l ^ (g = (1 , 0x12345678)));
}
This was a bug with the code for moving the return address. It would generate a "LDA 0" instruction when it was trying to load the value at DP+256.
The following program (derived from a csmith-generated test case) demonstrates the crash:
#pragma optimize 8
int main (int argc, char **argv) {
char s[0xFC];
}
This problem could lead to crashes in code like the following (derived from a csmith-generated test case):
#pragma optimize 1
int main (void)
{
if (1L) ;
}
This problem could lead to crashes in code like the following (derived from a csmith-generated test case):
#pragma optimize 1
static int main(void) {
long i = 2;
(long)(i > 1);
}
The previous code may have been intended to convert this to a "!=0" test, which would have been valid if correctly implemented, but with the current code generator that actually yields worse code than the original version, so for now I just removed the optimization for this case.
This problem could lead to crashes in code like the following (derived from a csmith-generated test case):
#pragma optimize 1
int main(int argc, char *argv[]){
long l_57 = argc;
return (4 ^ l_57) && 6;
}
This affected comparisons of the form "logical operation or comparison == constant other than 0 or 1". These should always evaluate to 0 (false), but could mis-evaluate to true due to the bad optimization.
The following program gives an example showing the problem:
#pragma optimize 1
int main(void) {
int i = 0, j = 42;
return (i || j) == 123;
}
Here's an example that shows the issues (derived from a csmith-generated test case):
struct S {
unsigned f;
};
void f1(struct S p) {
printf("%u\n", p.f);
}
int main(void) {
const struct S l = {123};
struct S s;
f1(l);
s = l;
printf("%u\n", s.f);
}
Such subexpressions are not of the right form to work with the existing code, because they do not generate a value for use in the enclosing expression. For now, the code has been changed to simply not remove the subexpression in these cases. Alternative code could be written to make it work, but that might be more trouble than it's worth.
Here's an example that shows the problem (derived from a csmith-generated test case):
#pragma optimize 32+1 /* also had a problem with just 32 */
int main(void) {
int x, y=10; /* also had problems if x was global */
do {
x=42, y-=1;
} while (y);
return x+y;
}
This would lead to errors in programs like the following:
int main(void) {
typedef int x;
x: ;
}
Even before support for mixed statements and declarations was introduced, this error could happen if the labeled statement was the first statement after the declarations in a block (as in the above example). Adding that support also allowed this error to happen with later statements in a block. The C4.2.4.1.CC test case was affected by this.
Under these rules, if, switch, for, while, and do statements each have their own block scopes separate from the enclosing scope, and their substatements also have their own block scopes.
This patch always applies the C99 scope rules, but a flag can be changed to disable them or make them conditional on a configuration setting.
