llvm-capstone/clang/test/Lexer/bitint-constants.c
Freddy Ye def720726b [X86][clang] Lift _BitInt() supported max width.
Reviewed By: mgehre-amd

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D139170
2022-12-06 11:02:27 +08:00

160 lines
5.6 KiB
C

// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple aarch64-unknown-unknown -std=c2x -fsyntax-only -verify -Wno-unused %s
// Test that the preprocessor behavior makes sense.
#if 1wb != 1
#error "wb suffix must be recognized by preprocessor"
#endif
#if 1uwb != 1
#error "uwb suffix must be recognized by preprocessor"
#endif
#if !(-1wb < 0)
#error "wb suffix must be interpreted as signed"
#endif
#if !(-1uwb > 0)
#error "uwb suffix must be interpreted as unsigned"
#endif
#if 18446744073709551615uwb != 18446744073709551615ULL
#error "expected the max value for uintmax_t to compare equal"
#endif
// Test that the preprocessor gives appropriate diagnostics when the
// literal value is larger than what can be stored in a [u]intmax_t.
#if 18446744073709551616wb != 0ULL // expected-error {{integer literal is too large to be represented in any integer type}}
#error "never expected to get here due to error"
#endif
#if 18446744073709551616uwb != 0ULL // expected-error {{integer literal is too large to be represented in any integer type}}
#error "never expected to get here due to error"
#endif
// Despite using a bit-precise integer, this is expected to overflow
// because all preprocessor arithmetic is done in [u]intmax_t, so this
// should result in the value 0.
#if 18446744073709551615uwb + 1 != 0ULL
#error "expected modulo arithmetic with uintmax_t width"
#endif
// Because this bit-precise integer is signed, it will also overflow,
// but Clang handles that by converting to uintmax_t instead of
// intmax_t.
#if 18446744073709551615wb + 1 != 0LL // expected-warning {{integer literal is too large to be represented in a signed integer type, interpreting as unsigned}}
#error "expected modulo arithmetic with uintmax_t width"
#endif
// Test that just because the preprocessor can't figure out the bit
// width doesn't mean we can't form the constant, it just means we
// can't use the value in a preprocessor conditional.
unsigned _BitInt(65) Val = 18446744073709551616uwb;
void ValidSuffix(void) {
// Decimal literals.
1wb;
1WB;
-1wb;
_Static_assert((int)1wb == 1, "not 1?");
_Static_assert((int)-1wb == -1, "not -1?");
1uwb;
1uWB;
1Uwb;
1UWB;
_Static_assert((unsigned int)1uwb == 1u, "not 1?");
1'2wb;
1'2uwb;
_Static_assert((int)1'2wb == 12, "not 12?");
_Static_assert((unsigned int)1'2uwb == 12u, "not 12?");
// Hexadecimal literals.
0x1wb;
0x1uwb;
0x0'1'2'3wb;
0xA'B'c'duwb;
_Static_assert((int)0x0'1'2'3wb == 0x0123, "not 0x0123");
_Static_assert((unsigned int)0xA'B'c'duwb == 0xABCDu, "not 0xABCD");
// Binary literals.
0b1wb;
0b1uwb;
0b1'0'1'0'0'1wb;
0b0'1'0'1'1'0uwb;
_Static_assert((int)0b1wb == 1, "not 1?");
_Static_assert((unsigned int)0b1uwb == 1u, "not 1?");
// Octal literals.
01wb;
01uwb;
0'6'0wb;
0'0'1uwb;
0wbu;
0WBu;
0wbU;
0WBU;
0wb;
_Static_assert((int)0wb == 0, "not 0?");
_Static_assert((unsigned int)0wbu == 0u, "not 0?");
// Imaginary or Complex. These are allowed because _Complex can work with any
// integer type, and that includes _BitInt.
1iwb;
1wbj;
}
void InvalidSuffix(void) {
// Can't mix the case of wb or WB, and can't rearrange the letters.
0wB; // expected-error {{invalid suffix 'wB' on integer constant}}
0Wb; // expected-error {{invalid suffix 'Wb' on integer constant}}
0bw; // expected-error {{invalid digit 'b' in octal constant}}
0BW; // expected-error {{invalid digit 'B' in octal constant}}
// Trailing digit separators should still diagnose.
1'2'wb; // expected-error {{digit separator cannot appear at end of digit sequence}}
1'2'uwb; // expected-error {{digit separator cannot appear at end of digit sequence}}
// Long.
1lwb; // expected-error {{invalid suffix}}
1wbl; // expected-error {{invalid suffix}}
1luwb; // expected-error {{invalid suffix}}
1ulwb; // expected-error {{invalid suffix}}
// Long long.
1llwb; // expected-error {{invalid suffix}}
1uwbll; // expected-error {{invalid suffix}}
// Floating point.
0.1wb; // expected-error {{invalid suffix}}
0.1fwb; // expected-error {{invalid suffix}}
// Repetitive suffix.
1wbwb; // expected-error {{invalid suffix}}
1uwbuwb; // expected-error {{invalid suffix}}
1wbuwb; // expected-error {{invalid suffix}}
1uwbwb; // expected-error {{invalid suffix}}
}
void ValidSuffixInvalidValue(void) {
// This is a valid suffix, but the value is larger than one that fits within
// the width of BITINT_MAXWIDTH. When this value changes in the future, the
// test cases should pick a new value that can't be represented by a _BitInt,
// but also add a test case that a 129-bit literal still behaves as-expected.
_Static_assert(__BITINT_MAXWIDTH__ <= 128,
"Need to pick a bigger constant for the test case below.");
0xFFFF'FFFF'FFFF'FFFF'FFFF'FFFF'FFFF'FFFF'1wb; // expected-error {{integer literal is too large to be represented in any signed integer type}}
0xFFFF'FFFF'FFFF'FFFF'FFFF'FFFF'FFFF'FFFF'1uwb; // expected-error {{integer literal is too large to be represented in any integer type}}
}
void TestTypes(void) {
// 2 value bits, one sign bit
_Static_assert(__builtin_types_compatible_p(__typeof__(3wb), _BitInt(3)));
// 2 value bits, one sign bit
_Static_assert(__builtin_types_compatible_p(__typeof__(-3wb), _BitInt(3)));
// 2 value bits, no sign bit
_Static_assert(__builtin_types_compatible_p(__typeof__(3uwb), unsigned _BitInt(2)));
// 4 value bits, one sign bit
_Static_assert(__builtin_types_compatible_p(__typeof__(0xFwb), _BitInt(5)));
// 4 value bits, one sign bit
_Static_assert(__builtin_types_compatible_p(__typeof__(-0xFwb), _BitInt(5)));
// 4 value bits, no sign bit
_Static_assert(__builtin_types_compatible_p(__typeof__(0xFuwb), unsigned _BitInt(4)));
}