[PATCH] c-family: Initialize ridpointers for __int128 etc. [PR105186]

[PATCH] c-family: Initialize ridpointers for __int128 etc. [PR105186]

[Jakub Jelinek]

Hi!

The following testcase ICEs with C++ and is incorrectly rejected with C.
The reason is that both FEs use ridpointers identifiers for CPP_KEYWORD
and value or u.value for CPP_NAME e.g. when parsing attributes or OpenMP
directives etc., like:
         /* Save away the identifier that indicates which attribute
            this is.  */
         identifier = (token->type == CPP_KEYWORD)
           /* For keywords, use the canonical spelling, not the
              parsed identifier.  */
           ? ridpointers[(int) token->keyword]
           : id_token->u.value;

         identifier = canonicalize_attr_name (identifier);
I've tried to change those to use ridpointers only if non-NULL and otherwise
use the value/u.value even for CPP_KEYWORDS, but that was a large 10 hunks
patch.

The following patch instead just initializes ridpointers for the __intNN
keywords.  It can't be done earlier before we record_builtin_type as there
are 2 different spellings and if we initialize those ridpointers early, the
second record_builtin_type fails miserably.

Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?

2022-04-08  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>

	PR c++/105186
	* c-common.cc (c_common_nodes_and_builtins): After registering __int%d
	and __int%d__ builtin types, initialize corresponding ridpointers
	entry.

	* c-c++-common/pr105186.c: New test.

--- gcc/c-family/c-common.cc.jj	2022-04-07 17:18:14.378883472 +0200
+++ gcc/c-family/c-common.cc	2022-04-07 17:21:07.950463695 +0200
@@ -4278,6 +4278,8 @@ c_common_nodes_and_builtins (void)
       sprintf (name, "__int%d__", int_n_data[i].bitsize);
       record_builtin_type ((enum rid)(RID_FIRST_INT_N + i), name,
 			   int_n_trees[i].signed_type);
+      ridpointers[RID_FIRST_INT_N + i]
+	= DECL_NAME (TYPE_NAME (int_n_trees[i].signed_type));
 
       sprintf (name, "__int%d unsigned", int_n_data[i].bitsize);
       record_builtin_type (RID_MAX, name, int_n_trees[i].unsigned_type);
--- gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/pr105186.c.jj	2022-04-07 17:25:32.084781386 +0200
+++ gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/pr105186.c	2022-04-07 17:25:13.736037189 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+/* PR c++/105186 */
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+
+__attribute__((__int128)) int i;	/* { dg-warning "'__int128' attribute directive ignored" } */
+__attribute__((__int128__)) int j;	/* { dg-warning "'__int128' attribute directive ignored" } */

	Jakub

Re: [PATCH] c-family: Initialize ridpointers for __int128 etc. [PR105186]

[Marek Polacek]

On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 09:29:52AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> The following testcase ICEs with C++ and is incorrectly rejected with C.
> The reason is that both FEs use ridpointers identifiers for CPP_KEYWORD
> and value or u.value for CPP_NAME e.g. when parsing attributes or OpenMP
> directives etc., like:
>          /* Save away the identifier that indicates which attribute
>             this is.  */
>          identifier = (token->type == CPP_KEYWORD)
>            /* For keywords, use the canonical spelling, not the
>               parsed identifier.  */
>            ? ridpointers[(int) token->keyword]
>            : id_token->u.value;
> 
>          identifier = canonicalize_attr_name (identifier);
> I've tried to change those to use ridpointers only if non-NULL and otherwise
> use the value/u.value even for CPP_KEYWORDS, but that was a large 10 hunks
> patch.
> 
> The following patch instead just initializes ridpointers for the __intNN
> keywords.  It can't be done earlier before we record_builtin_type as there
> are 2 different spellings and if we initialize those ridpointers early, the
> second record_builtin_type fails miserably.
> 
> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?
> 
> 2022-04-08  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>
> 
> 	PR c++/105186
> 	* c-common.cc (c_common_nodes_and_builtins): After registering __int%d
> 	and __int%d__ builtin types, initialize corresponding ridpointers
> 	entry.
> 
> 	* c-c++-common/pr105186.c: New test.
> 
> --- gcc/c-family/c-common.cc.jj	2022-04-07 17:18:14.378883472 +0200
> +++ gcc/c-family/c-common.cc	2022-04-07 17:21:07.950463695 +0200
> @@ -4278,6 +4278,8 @@ c_common_nodes_and_builtins (void)
>        sprintf (name, "__int%d__", int_n_data[i].bitsize);
>        record_builtin_type ((enum rid)(RID_FIRST_INT_N + i), name,
>  			   int_n_trees[i].signed_type);
> +      ridpointers[RID_FIRST_INT_N + i]
> +	= DECL_NAME (TYPE_NAME (int_n_trees[i].signed_type));

So this also covers the range for the unsigned variants of these types.

I think the patch is OK, thanks.

>        sprintf (name, "__int%d unsigned", int_n_data[i].bitsize);
>        record_builtin_type (RID_MAX, name, int_n_trees[i].unsigned_type);
> --- gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/pr105186.c.jj	2022-04-07 17:25:32.084781386 +0200
> +++ gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/pr105186.c	2022-04-07 17:25:13.736037189 +0200
> @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
> +/* PR c++/105186 */
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
> +
> +__attribute__((__int128)) int i;	/* { dg-warning "'__int128' attribute directive ignored" } */
> +__attribute__((__int128__)) int j;	/* { dg-warning "'__int128' attribute directive ignored" } */

Marek