This has the side effect of treating most parameters declared as arrays as actually having pointer types. This affects the value returned by sizeof, among other things. The new behavior is correct under the C standards; however, it does not yet apply when using a typedef'd array type.
In the new implementation, variable arguments are not removed until the end of the function. This allows variable argument processing to be restarted, and it prevents the addresses of local variables from changing in the middle of the function. The requirement to turn off stack repair code around varargs functions is also removed.
This fixes#58.
We previously ignored this, but it is a constraint violation under the C standards, so it should be reported as an error.
GCC and Clang allow this as an extension, as we were effectively doing previously. We will follow the standards for now, but if there was demand for such an extension in ORCA/C, it could be re-introduced subject to a #pragma ignore flag.
When using such a string literal to initialize an array with automatic storage duration, the bytes after the first null would be set to 0, rather than the values from the string literal.
Here is an example program showing the problem:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void) {
char s[] = "a\0b";
puts(s+2);
}
Compound literals outside of functions should work at this point.
Compound literals inside of functions are not fully implemented, so they are disabled for now. (There is some code to support them, but the code to actually initialize them at the appropriate time is not written yet.)
This is a change that was introduced in C17. However, it actually keeps things closer to ORCA/C's historical behavior, which generally ignored qualifiers in return types.
This causes an error to be produced when trying to assign to these fields, which was being allowed before. It is also necessary for correct behavior of _Generic in some cases.
This behavior is specified by the C standards. It can come up when declaring an array using a typedef'd array type and a qualifier.
This is necessary for correct behavior of _Generic, as well as to give an error if code tries to write to const arrays declared in this way.
Here is an example showing these issues:
#define f(e) _Generic((e), int *: 1, const int *:2, default: 0)
int main(void) {
typedef int A[2][3];
const A a = {{4, 5, 6}, {7, 8, 9}};
_Static_assert(f(&a[0][0]) == 2, "qualifier error"); // OK
a[1][1] = 42; // error
}
These are needed to correctly distinguish pointer types in _Generic. They should also be used for type compatibility checks in other contexts, but currently are not.
This also fixes a couple small problems related to type qualifiers:
*restrict was not allowed to appear after * in type-names
*volatile status was not properly recorded in sym files
Here is an example of using _Generic to distinguish pointer types based on the qualifiers of the pointed-to type:
#include <stdio.h>
#define f(e) _Generic((e),\
int * restrict *: 1,\
int * volatile const *: 2,\
int **: 3,\
default: 0)
#define g(e) _Generic((e),\
int *: 1,\
const int *: 2,\
volatile int *: 3,\
default: 0)
int main(void) {
int * restrict * p1;
int * volatile const * p2;
int * const * p3;
// should print "1 2 0 1"
printf("%i %i %i %i\n", f(p1), f(p2), f(p3), f((int * restrict *)0));
int *q1;
const int *q2;
volatile int *q3;
const volatile int *q4;
// should print "1 2 3 0"
printf("%i %i %i %i\n", g(q1), g(q2), g(q3), g(q4));
}
Here is an example of a problem resulting from volatile not being recorded in sym files (if a sym file was present, the read of x was lifted out of the loop):
#pragma optimize -1
static volatile int x;
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void) {
int y;
for (unsigned i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
y = x*2 + 7;
}
}
Enumeration constants must have values representable as an int (i.e. 16-bit signed values, in ORCA/C), but errors were not being reported if code tried to use the values 0xFFFF8000 to 0xFFFFFFFF. This problem could also affect certain larger values of type unsigned long long. The issue stemmed from not properly accounting for whether the constant expression had a signed or unsigned type.
This sample code demonstrated the problem:
enum E {
a = 0xFFFFFFFF,
b = 0xFFFF8000,
y = 0x7FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFull,
z = 0x8000000000000000
};
These were previously treated as having type int. This resulted in incorrect results from sizeof, and would also be a problem for _Generic if it was implemented.
Note that this creates a token kind of "charconst", but this is not the kind for character constants in the source code. Those have type int, so their kind is intconst. The new kinds of "tokens" are created only through casts of constant expressions.
The FENV_ACCESS pragma is now implemented. It causes floating-point operations to be evaluated at run time to the maximum extent possible, so that they can affect and be affected by the floating-point environment. It also disables optimizations that might evaluate floating-point operations at compile time or move them around calls to the <fenv.h> functions.
The FP_CONTRACT and CX_LIMITED_RANGE pragmas are also recognized, but they have no effect. (FP_CONTRACT relates to "contracting" floating-point expressions in a way that ORCA/C does not do, and CX_LIMITED_RANGE relates to complex arithmetic, which ORCA/C does not support.)
This gives the name of the current function, as if the following definition appeared at the beginning of the function body:
static const char __func__[] = "function-name";
This affected initializers like the following:
static int a[50];
static int *ip = &a[0] + 2U;
Also, introduce some basic range checks for calculations that are obviously outside the 65816's address space.
These use a new calling convention specific to functions returning these types. When such functions are called, the caller must set the X register to the address within bank 0 that the return value is to be saved to. The function is then responsible for saving it there before returning to the caller.
Currently, the calling code always makes space for the return value on the stack and sets X to point to that. (As an optimization, it would be possible to have the return value written directly to a local variable on the direct page, with no change needed to the function being called, but that has not yet been implemented.)
Currently, the actual values they can have are still constrained to the 32-bit range. Also, there are some bits of functionality (e.g. for initializers) that are not implemented yet.
This generalizes the heuristic approach for checking whether _Noreturn functions could execute to the end of the function, extending it to apply to any function with a non-void return type. These checks use the same #pragma lint bit but give different messages depending on the situation.
This uses a heuristic that may produce both false positives and false negatives, but any false positives should reflect extraneous code at the end of the function that is not actually reachable.
Currently, this only flags return statements, not cases where they may execute to the end of the function. (Whether the function will actually return is not decidable in general, although it may be in special cases).
This currently checks for:
*Calls to undefined functions (same as bit 0)
*Parameters not declared in K&R-style function definitions
*Declarations or type names with no type specifiers (includes but is broader than the condition checked by bit 1)
Previously, the designated initializer syntax could confuse the parser enough to cause null pointer dereferences. This avoids that, and also gives a more meaningful error message to the user.
In combination with earlier patches, this fixes#53.
Also, if the lint flag requiring explicit function types is set, then also require that K&R-style parameters be explicitly declared with types, rather than not being declared and defaulting to int. (This is a requirement in C99 and later.)
Previously, these would report "identifier expected"; now they correctly say "')' expected".
This introduces a new UnexpectedTokenError procedure that can be used more generally for cases where the expected token may differ based on context.
_Thread_local is recognized but gives a "not supported" error. It could arguably be 'supported' trivially by saying the execution of an ORCA/C program is just one thread and so no special handling is needed, but that likely isn't what someone using it would expect.
There would be a possible issue if a "static" or "typedef" storage class specifier occurred after a type specifier that required memory to be allocated for it, because that memory conceptually might be in the local pool, but static objects are processed at the end of the translation unit, so their types need to stick around. In practice, this should not occur, because the local pool isn't currently used for much (in particular, not for statements or declarations in the body of a function). We give an error in case this somehow might occur.
In combination with preceding commits, this fixes#14. Declaration specifiers can now appear in any order, as required by the C standards.
This includes both the standard ones (inline and _Noreturn) and the ORCA/C-specific ones (asm and pascal). They can now be freely mixed with other declaration specifiers.
Some errors related to function specifiers are not yet detected.
This could happen in a declaration like "char _Alignas(long) c;", where typeSpec wound up specifying long rather than char.
Also, tweak error checks for _Alignas and _Atomic.
_Bool, _Complex, _Imaginary, _Atomic, restrict, and _Alignas are now recognized in types, but all except restrict and _Alignas will give an error saying they are not supported.
This also introduces uniform definitions of the syntactic classes of tokens that can be used in declaration specifiers and related constructs (currently used in some places but not yet in others).
These qualifiers were previously sometimes accepted between the name and left brace of struct and enum type specifiers. This was non-standard and is no longer allowed.
Type specifiers and type qualifiers can now appear in any order, as specified by the C standards. However, storage class specifiers and function specifiers still cannot be freely mixed with them.
As of C11, type names are now used as part of the declaration syntax (in _Alignas and _Atomic specifiers), in addition to their uses in expressions. Moving the TypeName method will allow it to be called when processing declarations.
When these invalid sym files were used during subsequent compiles, certain type pointers (for what should be const-qualified struct or union types) could be left uninitialized, or possibly initialized pointing to different types. This could result in spurious errors or potentially in other problems.
This relates to unions or structs that are "filled" with zeros because the initializer does not include explicit terms for them, and that contain bit-fields or (for unions) do not start with the longest member.
The following program is an example that was miscompiled:
#include <stdio.h>
struct BF {
int i:3;
int j:4;
};
union U {
int i;
long l;
};
struct Outer1 {
int n;
struct BF bf[7];
union U u[5];
};
struct Outer2 {
long p;
struct Outer1 o1;
long q;
};
int main(void) {
static struct Outer2 s = {1,{0},212};
printf("%li %li\n", s.p, s.q);
}
This fixes case 1 (dealing with run-time initialization of structures containing bit-fields) and case 2 (dealing with initialization of structs where initializer values are not provided for all elements) from issue #59. It also fixes cases that could result in invalid initialization of unions if their first element was not the longest, as in the following example:
#include <stdio.h>
union U {
int i;
long l;
};
int main(void) {
union U a[5] = {1,2,3,4};
printf("a[0].i=%i, a[1].i=%i, a[2].i=%i, a[3].i=%i, a[4].i=%i\n",
a[0].i, a[1].i, a[2].i, a[3].i, a[4].i);
}
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.
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.
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 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.
In the case of structs or unions, an error is now produced. This addresses one of the problems mentioned in issue #53.
In the case of arrays, tentative definitions like "int i[];" are now permitted at file scope. If not completed by a subsequent definition, this winds up producing an array with one element, initialized to 0. See the discussion and example in C99/C11 section 6.9.2 (or C90 section 6.7.2 and example in TC1).
If there are no varargs calls (and nothing else that saves stack positions), then space doesn't need to be allocated for the saved stack position. This can also lead to more efficient prolog/epilog code for small functions.
For example, the following is now allowed:
typedef void v;
void foo(v) {}
This appears to be permitted under at least C99 and C11 (the C89 wording is less clear), and is accepted by other modern compilers.
These are enabled when bit 15 is set in the #pragma debug directive.
Support is still needed to ensure these work properly with pre-compiled headers.
This patch is from Kelvin Sherlock.
Previously, several optimizations would be disabled for the rest of the translation unit whenever the keyword 'volatile' appeared. Now, if 'volatile' is used within a function, it only reduces optimization for that function, since whatever was declared as 'volatile' will be out of scope after the function is over. Uses of 'volatile' outside functions still behave as before.
This problem could cause "duplicate symbol" and "undeclared identifier" errors, for example in the following program:
typedef int f1( void );
void bar( void ) {
int i;
f1 *foo;
int baz;
i = 10;
}
int foo;
long baz;
This should give C99-compatible behavior, as far as it goes. The functions aren't actually inlined, but that's just a quality-of-implementation issue. No C standard requires actual inlining.
Non-static inline functions are still not supported. The C99 semantics for them are more complicated, and they're less widely used, so they're a lower priority for now.
The "inline" function specifier can currently only come after the "static" storage class specifier. This relates to a broader issue where not all legal orderings of declaration specifiers are supported.
Since "inline" was already treated as a keyword in ORCA/C, this shouldn't create any extra compatibility issues for C89 code.
ORCA/C previously allowed struct/union members to be declared with incomplete type. Because of this, it allowed C99-style flexible array members to be declared, albeit by accident rather than by design. In some basic testing, these seem to work correctly, except that they could be initialized and that would give rise to odd behavior.
I have restricted it to allowing flexible array members only in the cases allowed by C99/C11, and otherwise disallowing members with incomplete type. I have also prohibited initializing flexible array members.
Also, generate better code for zero-initializing small arrays.
The problem was that the code would call the library routine ~ZERO with a size of 1, but it only works properly with a size of 2 or more. While adding a check here, I also changed it to not call ~ZERO for other small arrays (<=10 bytes), since it is generally more efficient to just initialize them directly.
The initializations in the following are examples that could trigger the problem:
int main(void)
{
struct { int i; char s[1]; } foo = {1, 0};
char arr[2][1] = {2};
}
This may be someone trying to use a C11-style anonymous struct/union, which should be flagged as an error until and unless those are supported. Otherwise, it probably just indicates that the programmer is confused. In any case, an error should be flagged for it.
C89 restricts bit fields to (signed) int and unsigned int only, although later standards note that additional types may be supported. ORCA/C supports the other integer types as an extension.
This fixes the compco01.c test case.
This patch should also permit the union initialization code to handle unions containing bit fields, but for the time being they are still prohibited by code elsewhere in the compiler.
The case label values are converted to the promoted type of the expression being switched on, as if by a cast. In practice, this means discarding the high bits of a 32-bit value to produce a 16-bit one.
Code requiring this is dubious and would be a good candidate for a warning or a lint error, but it's allowed under the C standards.
The following code demonstrates the issue:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
int i = 0x1234;
switch (i) {
case 0xABCD1234:
puts("good");
break;
default:
puts("bad");
}
}
Stephen Heumann
mikew50