Differential D34158
For Linux/gnu compatibility, preinclude <stdc-predef.h> if the file is available Authored by mibintc on Jun 13 2017, 11:57 AM.
Details
As reported in llvm bugzilla 32377. The gcc documentation says “On GNU/Linux, <stdc-predef.h> is pre-included.” See https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.8/porting_to.html; The preinclude is inhibited with –ffreestanding. Basically I fixed the failing test cases by adding –ffreestanding which inhibits this behavior. I fixed all the failing tests, including some in extra/test, there's a separate patch for that which is linked here
Diff Detail Event TimelineComment Actions There is no /usr/include/stdc-predef.h on Solaris and I see no sense in adding this -include for anything except Linux Checked gcc on Solaris11/12 both SPARC and X86 - none are doing stdc-predef.h inclusion gcc - -dI </dev/null -E | grep stdc-predef )
Comment Actions
Oh, well, gcc implementation is rather generic, it relies on gcc's config.gcc to detect glibc and then it adds a hook that unconditionally provides stdc-predef.h (TARGET_C_PREINCLUDE). I'm not sure how far into that do you really want to dive.... :-/ Comment Actions Thanks for your review, Fedor. I moved AddGnuIncludeArgs out of GCCInstallation, like you suggested, and put it along where the library includes are added. I also pulled out the change for MipsLinux since I don't have a way to verify that. I still have the same 7 test failures when make check-all on Linux. 3 of the fails are from "clangd" unit tests. Not sure why they are failing but i scanned the tests a little and it talks about access only to whitelisted directories, so I assume they aren't working because the dir where std-predef.h lives is not white listed. Maybe I should be sure that "file exists(stdc-predef.h)", e.g. using the system include path, before adding the -include into the command line--what do you think? Comment Actions LGTM wrt your update to sources. Probing existence of this header would make a sense, yet you are including it w/o a full path, so how are you going to find it for this probe? Comment Actions Yes, I'd have to change this patch to iterate through the system headers. Once I found an instance I'd keep the full path name and -include it using full path name. I'll go ahead and change the patch to do this. The other thought I had is: don't check for gcc version -- just add this functionality for all gcc versions on Linux. The reason I'd do that is to avoid creating lit test failures when the lit tests are running with gcc versions less than gcc 4.8; thus far I've been able to fix the lit failures by adding "-nostdinc". Adding "-nostdinc" to the tests would work regardless of gcc version. But I'm concerned that I will need to update some of the lit tests by checking for different output. In that case the expected output would differ based on gcc version, and I don't know if it's possible to express "don't run this lit test for gcc< 4.8". Comment Actions I'm submitting another revision which checks for the existence of stdc-predef.h before inserting the -include option. Comment Actions Here's a modified revision which checks if stdc-predef.h exists before adding a -include option to that file. this is only for Linux using gcc 4.8 and higher. Several tests needed to be fixed because of this change - i fixed them by suppressing the preinclude using ffreestanding or nostdinc. Also i need to change about 10 clang/tools/extra/test/clang-tidy tests. Those test changes aren't in this patch. Please tell me: what's the correct procedure for getting those tests reviewed? Thanks Fedor for your reviews! Comment Actions @fedor.sergeev do you have time to review my (hopefully) final revision? Also can you recommend someone to review the extra test changes? Comment Actions
I'm rather new to the project and thus rather bad at finding reviewers. I will take a look at the final version tomorrow. Comment Actions Some comments inline. In general you should consider posting an RFC on cfe-dev because this change will basically affect all compilations on GNU/Linux if the file is present.
Comment Actions Fedor, let me address the comments from Jonas (with another revision!) before you take a look. Comment Actions The previous (n-1) version didn't work: I wanted to iterate through the system include directories to check for the existence of stdc-predef.h but clang is using a different kind of system include option for /usr and /usr/include so the iterator didn't find any system includes at all, i don't think there is an iterator which will iterate through these special kind of include directories. [Kind of embarrassing that I posted that patch which didn't work at all, sorry about that.] This one behaves more like gcc anyway. gcc puts the -include option in there regardless, and to suppress the behavior you are to use the -ffreestanding option. I responded to the remarks from Jonas Hahnfeld, making the patch only for Linux. I'm having trouble with one of the existing tests. These are the ones that fail. I don't know how to fix the text. It's a google test and it is using a dummy file system with whitelisted directories. @ilya-biryukov Is there a way to pass in a command line argument? if so, I could fix it these failures by adding -ffreestanding option which suppresses the new behavior. That's how I fixed the many test failures which I encountered with this new behavior. Extra Tools Unit Tests :: clangd/ClangdTests/ClangdVFSTest.Parse Extra Tools Unit Tests :: clangd/ClangdTests/ClangdVFSTest.ParseWithHeader Extra Tools Unit Tests :: clangd/ClangdTests/ClangdVFSTest.Reparse The other test that fails is my own new test! It fails because I don't know how to set it up so the test thinks it has a gcc toolchain with version > 4.8. I tried using gcc-toolchain set to various other Linux toolchains that i see in the test/Driver/Inputs - none of them cause the gcc version to be in the range. I also tried using -ccc-installation=Inputs/ which I see being used for gcc version parsing. How can I set up the test so that the GCCInstallation has a Version >= 4.8? I test the new functionality from the console on Linux and can confirm it's working. Failing Tests (4): -- the 3 listed above, as well as Clang :: Driver/gcc-predef.c -- my new test, the 3rd run which confirms that the include is added Comment Actions Here's a patch to fix ClangdTests: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34936 Comment Actions You could try adding a completely new directory in Inputs/. Add the directory usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux/4.9.0 underneath which should be recognized as the version. Maybe you have to add some more files, I'm not really familiar with the detection mechanism...
Comment Actions Thanks. I did that by copying the directory from fake_install_tree into a new install directory named stdc-predef. However, this modification didn't result in altering the macro values for gnu-major and gnu-minor. On the other hand, it is necessary to have a gcc installation in the --sysroot directory. The test didn't pass if the gcc installation wasn't present in the Inputs directory. I used the method you suggested and modified the test to use -### and check for the presence or absence of -include stdc-predef.h. Now these new tests are passing. Thank you very much for the suggestion. Comment Actions I responded to the review from Jonas Hahnfeld: I moved the entire change into ToolChains/Linux and removed the modifications to Gnu.h and Gnu.cpp; I modified the new tests to use -### with FileCheck, and added a tree in Inputs/ for the new tests. Jonas please see inline reply concerning whether to--or how to--check for existence of stdc-predef.h Also, note that there are some tests from clang-tidy that need to be updated. I have a separate patch for that since it's in a different repo. I assume it would be good to get those modifications landed before this patch. Comment Actions Jonas asked about adding a new test to ensure that "-include stdc-predef.h" does not get added if the file doesn't exist. I added a reply to that but I can't see where it went. So I'm writing the reply again. The current version of the patch doesn't check for the existence of stdc-predef.h. As far as I understand, this is consistent with gcc behavior. It is expected that if you are on a system without stdc-predef.h then you can add -ffreestanding. In a prior revision of this patch (see Diff 4), I attempted to iterate through the system directories to check for the existence of the file before adding -include with a full path name. However that patch didn't work. I was using this call to iterate through the system includes: getAllArgValues(options::OPT_isystem). However, the directory where stdc-predef.h is located, /usr/include, is added into the search path by using the option -internal-externc-isystem. getAllArgValues(options::OPT_isystem) does not iterate through the include directories which were added via -internal-externc-isystem. [Note: is this a bug?]. There is no enumeration value within options::OPT_? which corresponds to -internal-externc-isystem. I could check for the existence of this file: /usr/include/stdc-predef.h; I don't know whether this would be acceptable or if it's correct.
Comment Actions I rewrote the patch the way that Richard suggested, adding a cc1 option "finclude-if-exists" and injecting #if __has_include etc. [OK to use finclude? include-if-exists preferred?]
Comment Actions I updated the patch as James directed, moving the preinclude of stdc-predef.h into clang.cpp and out of the Linux toolchain entirely. I also needed to update a couple more tests in tools/extra, so I will need to update that related differential as well. Comment Actions This version is still disabling upon -nostdinc, which doesn't make sense to me. You didn't remove that, nor respond explaining why you think it does make sense? Comment Actions I agree. If I pass -nostdinc, so that I then arrange include paths for my own libc headers, I'd then like to pick up the predef header from that library (if available). There's no clearly right answer for whether __STDC_NO_THREADS__ is defined, for example, regardless of whether we're using -nostdinc.
Comment Actions You're right, I should remove the check on nostdinc. Sorry I missed that remark from you initially, that's why I didn't reply. I will upload another patch which removes the check on nostdinc. Comment Actions OK folks, I was off the grid last week but I'm back now, and at my grindstone again. Comment Actions Here is an updated diff which is rebased to current trunk per @fedor.sergeev 's suggestion (thank you). make check-all and check-clang are working for me on Linux with no unexpected failures. The associated patch for test cases in the tools/extra directory is still valid, it doesn't need updating. Comment Actions Hmm... I tried this patch and now the following worries me:
That essentially disallows user to have stdc-predef.h include in my own project, since there is a chance that this user header ] cat stdc-predef.h #error I was not expecting to see this! ] bin/clang hello-world.c In file included from <built-in>:2: ./stdc-predef.h:1:2: error: I was not expecting to see this! #error I was not expecting to see this! ^ 1 error generated. ] Comment Actions Right, but Solaris probably _ought_ to add one as well, to define those macros.
IMO, this is a fairly negligible issue, and so we go *shrug* oh well. +1 for using a <> include -- that does seem better. But, note, that will have no effect w.r.t. this issue for most users, since typically people use "cc -Isomepath", which adds 'somepath' to the list which gets searched by both <> and "" includes. Hardly anyone uses -iquote. Comment Actions Point taken, started internal discussion with Solaris header folks.
This is the only remaining issue that I would like to see fixed here. Comment Actions @erichkeane contacted me offline and pointed out I'm twine-ing with " not <. i'm planning to change the option name from "finclude if exists" to "fsystem include if exists", then i'll quote with < not ". hope to get this updated patch into review later today. let me know if you think i'm off track. thanks for all your careful review. i knew there was something wrong with the include like Fedor pointed out but i couldn't see where i went wrong. Comment Actions Here's an updated patch which is using angle brackets to do the include, so the search for stdc-predef.h is limited to system directories. Also my previous revision was missing the new test cases since i had gotten a new sandbox but forgot to "svn add". This patch is showing the new test cases.
Comment Actions This patch responds to @fedor.sergeev 's feedback from earlier today. This is a change to the test case test/Driver/stdc-predef.c in the situation that the system does not supply a version of stdc-predef.h. Fedor had suggested an option like -H which traces the include files, but the file stdc-predef.h does not appear in the -H standard include tracing even if it is available on the host system. Instead for this case I preprocess the simple test file, with sysroot pointing to a filesystem missing the file stdc-predef.h, and verify with FileCheck that the string stdc-predef.h doesn't appear in the preprocessed output. Comment Actions I had a long discussion with James about this on IRC without reaching a clear consensus. I consider forcing this behavior on all targets to be a major bug. It should be opt-in and opt-in only: (1) The header name is not mandated by any standard. It is not in any namespace generally accepted as implementation-owned. As such, please move the command line additions back into the target-specific files for targets that actually want to get this behavior. Comment Actions I will prepare another patch responding to joerg's comment:
I had a long discussion with James about this on IRC without reaching a clear consensus. I consider forcing this behavior on all targets to be a major bug. It should be opt-in and opt-in only: (1) The header name is not mandated by any standard. It is not in any namespace generally accepted as implementation-owned. As such, please move the command line additions back into the target-specific files for targets that actually want to get this behavior. Comment Actions In the last review, it was deemed less controversial if I move these updates back into the gnu/Linux tool chain. This revision is responding to that feedback. I also simplified the test case. I tested on Linux with check-all and check-clang and found no unexpected failures. The other test case modifications are to fix tests which are broken with this change due to unexpected changes to the preprocessing. I changed all these to pass -ffreestanding which inhibits the new behavior. In fact I did have trouble writing the new test case to pass with the gnu/Linux toolchain. In the file lib/Driver/ToolChains/Linux.cpp function AddGnuIncludeArgs checks if GCCInstallation.isValid(). I don't know how to set up a Driver/Inputs sysroot tree so that the isValid check passes. (Does anyone know?) I experimented with various existing trees and had success with basic_cross_linux_tree, so I used that one in the test case. However basic_cross_linux_tree doesn't contain stdc-predef.h. Would it be OK to add an include file to that tree? (I don't know if it's acceptable to add a new sysroot tree: it is a lot of new files and directories. On the other hand, I don't know if it's OK to co-opt a tree which was added by a different test case) Perhaps you want me to another test case which verifies that fsystem-include-if-exists works generally. Currently I've added an affirmative test to see that -fsystem-include-if-exists is on the command line, and a test that -ffreestanding inhibits, and a negative test that when given a sysroot without the file, that the preprocessed output shows no indication of stdc-predef.h. Comment Actions You should not be doing stdc-predef.h under GCCInstallation.isValid(). Comment Actions Responding to @fedor.sergeev 's comment. This is an updated patch which pulls out the "isValid" check on GCCInstallation. Also I'm putting back the dummy sysroot tree which contains stdc-predef.h and adding a new test run to confirm that the new option fsystem-include-if-exists is actually working. Comment Actions This is a point. I didn't think it was a big deal, but if you want to argue a different name should be used, that's a reasonable argument. If we can get some agreement amongst other libc vendors to use some more agreeable alternative name, and keep a fallback on linux-only for the "stdc-predef.h" name, I'd consider that as a great success.
If this is a problem, making it be Linux-only does _nothing_ to solve it. But I don't actually see how this is a substantively new problem? Compiling with plain -c before would get #defines for those predefined macros that the compiler sets, even though you may not have wanted those. Is this fundamentally different?
I don't think this is accurate. There's many platforms out there, and for almost none of them do we have exact knowledge of the features of the libc encoded into the compiler. I'd note that not only do you need this for every (OS, libc) combination, you'd need it for every (OS, libc-VERSION) combination.
AFAICT, this example is not actually the case. The frontend only needs to know *a* valid encoding for wide-character literals in some implementation-defined locale (for example, it might always emit them as unicode codepoints, as clang does). Standard says: "the array elements [...] are initialized with the sequence of wide characters corresponding to the multibyte character sequence, as defined by the mbstowcs function with an implementation defined current locale." On the other hand, I believe the intent of this macro is to guarantee that _no matter what_ the locale is, that a U+0100 character (say, translated with mbrtowc from the locale encoding) gets represented as 0x100. Thus, it's "fine" for the frontend to always emit wchar_t literals as unicode, yet, the libc may sometimes use an arbitrary different internal encoding, depending on the locale used at runtime. (Obviously using wide character literals with such a libc would be a poor user experience, and such a libc probably ought to reconsider its choices, but that's a different discussion.)
Without even a suggestion of a better solution to use for other targets, I find it is to be a real shame to push for this to be linux-only, and leave everyone else hanging. I find that that _most_ of these defines are effectively library decisions. I further would claim that these are likely to vary over the lifetime of even a single libc, and that as such we would be better served by allowing the libc to set them directly, rather than encoding it into the compiler. TTBOMK, no targets except linux/glibc/gcc actually comply with this part of the C99/C11 standard today, and so this feature would be useful to have available across all targets. (I very much dislike that the C standard has started adding all these new predefined macros, instead of exposing them from a header, but there's not much to be done about that...) Going through the various macros: __STDC_MB_MIGHT_NEQ_WC__: __STDC_UTF16__, __STDC_UTF32__: __STDC_ANALYZABLE__ __STDC_IEC_559__, __STDC_IEC_559_COMPLEX__: __STDC_LIB_EXT1__: __STDC_NO_COMPLEX__: __STDC_NO_THREADS__: __STDC_NO_VLA__: Comment Actions Perhaps not a big deal yet, but as I have recently described stdc-predef.h idea to Oracle Solaris libc/headers/compilers folks, they generally welcomed the idea..
Solaris is a direct example of that... Comment Actions It makes it a linux-only problem. As such, it is something *I* only care about secondary. A typical use case I care about a lot is pulling the crash report sources from my (NetBSD) build machine,
Not really. The feature set is rarely changing and generally will have only a cut-off version.
I know what the standard says. It doesn't make much sense if you do not have a fixed wchar_t encoding.
Yes, so it is essentially "we have screwed up by creating a language mechanism that adds a major constraint, so let's go all the way".
One of the biggest opponents of that was Itojun. It's not a decision that should be made here as it is only indirectly related to this discussion.
Exactly. It's not like this is a lot of target logic. It should be a single call for targets that want to get this functionality. But that's my point -- it should be opt-in, not opt-out. Comment Actions Just to restate: the ideal outcome of this discussion for me would be to resolve things such that _ALL_ libc implementations will feel comfortable using this technique to provide the C11-required predefined macros. I'd love for linux, freebsd, macos, solaris, etc etc libc to all conform to the C standard in this regards, and do so in a common way, without the need to encode information about each libc version into the compiler. I _really_ don't think that scales well. So I take your comments from FreeBSD's point of view seriously, and would very much like to understand and hopefully resolve them. "it's Linux only so I don't care if it's broken." is still not very helpful. :) But I do think understand what you're saying now, so thanks for the elaboration. Firstly, let's consider a "clang foo.i" or "clang -x cpp-output foo.c" compilation. In that case, it *clearly* should not be including the predef file. I think the patch as it stands may not do this properly. A test needs to be added for this to this patch, and perhaps the behavior needs to be fixed as well. (Sidenote: clang doesn't support preprocessed input properly, but that's another bug, and we certainly ought not make it worse. Check out e.g. "int main() { return GNUC; }". it should report that GNUC is undeclared, but instead compiles a program that returns 4.) But, that's not the case you're talking about above -- you're not talking about compiling preprocessed output, you're talking about taking output that comes from -frewrite-includes. Let me recap the scenario:
#include <stdlib.h>
The .c file is generated via -frewrite-includes, so it's _not_ already preprocessed, it simply has all includes pulled into a single file. It also _doesn't_ insert the compiler-predefined macros at the top, but it _will_ include the content of this stdc-predef.h file. OK, so then... Now, the "/tmp/foo-XXX.sh" also has a line labeled "Driver args: " with the original command-line on it. If I understand correctly, you then like to take this simpler Driver command-line, and edit it manually: add -save-temps, and change the input filename to the "/tmp/foo-XXX.c" file, and run that, instead of actually invoking the reproducer foo-XXX.sh. Since stdc-predef.h is included automatically, it will now be present twice -- first, it will read the one from your system's /usr/include, and then the copy inlined into the /tmp/foo-XXX.c file. That's not what you desired. You wanted nothing from your /usr/include to be used. The fix for the end-user here is easy: you can add -nostdinc which will suppress all the default include paths, and thus it will not find this predef file from your system include dir. I'll note that you'd also have had an issue if the original driver command-line had a "-include" option in it, which you would have needed to edit out manually as well. (But I understand that is less common.) Have I correctly described the situation? I guess my feeling here is that this is somewhat of an edge-case, and that the workaround (-nostdinc) is a sufficient fix.
Yes, but this is information that the compiler has no real need to know, and that for many platforms would be difficult and problematic to coordinate. Comment Actions The crash rewrite tool creates semi-preprocessed output. It resolves includes along all code branches, but keeps macros and CPP conditionals alone. Comment Actions It's not so much that it is simpler, but the only reasonable easy way for forcing preprocessor output to written. That one is much nicer for passing to creduce for example (after stripping the remaining # lines).
Correct. Worse, the include may file depending on the host system and give different results from the original build, resulting in annoying debugging seasons.
Yeah, except you have to remember that when it was never needed before.
Yes, -include is rarely used in the wild.
That's kind of my point. There is little coordination involved for almost all platforms since they provide a consistent user environment as a single package. Pushing the changes into Clang (or GCC for that matter) is trivial if you do not have to deal with multiple different versions of libc, the kernel and whatever in a mix-and-match scenario. Comment Actions This patch is responding to @jyknight 's concern about preprocessed input. The patch as it stands doesn't have this issue. I added 2 test cases, one using option -x cpp-output, and another for a source file suffixed with .i Quoting James: "Firstly, let's consider a "clang foo.i" or "clang -x cpp-output foo.c" compilation. In that case, it *clearly* should not be including the predef file. I think the patch as it stands may not do this properly. A test needs to be added for this to this patch, and perhaps the behavior needs to be fixed as well." Comment Actions Thanks for the test. It wasn't obvious from the code, so I'm glad to hear it was already correct. :) Did you see the other suggestion I cleverly hid within a big block of commentary? "(TO FIX: We should be stripping the new arg as well: add "-fsystem-include-if-exists" argument to the list of include things in the skipArgs() function in lib/Driver/Job.cpp)" Comment Actions Need TO FIX: We should be stripping the new arg as well: add "-fsystem-include-if-exists" argument to the list of include things in the skipArgs() function in lib/Driver/Job.cpp Comment Actions @jyknight recommended adding the new option to skipArgs in Job.cpp. This revision makes that change and tests that in crash-report.c; look OK? Comment Actions Another ping. Is it possible to approve this modification, or alternatively, let me know that it won't be approved indefinitely? I understand that it's a controversial change. Thanks! Comment Actions I heard that @jyknight is still interested in this functionality, updating the patch to latest sources, to do this i needed to make a small change to a couple of driver tests. Other than that it's the same as previous submission. Comment Actions This version is fine with me. The only contentious part is whether it should be opt-in or opt-out for platforms, so getting this version in and revisiting the issue again later is OK from my perspective. Comment Actions Hey @jyknight I heard from @erichkeane that you may want a couple more changes to this patch. Please let me know if you have some changes to recommend. @joerg thought this was OK for submission. Thanks --Melanie Comment Actions I'd still _very_ much like a solution that is acceptable for all libc to use, and have that on by default. However, I guess this is fine. Only concern I have is that it seems odd that so many test-cases needed to be changed. What fails without those test changes? Comment Actions Those tests fail because they generate preprocessed output and then check carefully for precise results. Since the preprocessed output is different, the comparison fails. I "fixed" the tests by adding the freestanding option which inhibits the new behavior. I'll have to check out and rebuild everything so I can show you exactly the failure mode, I expect I can post details tomorrow. Comment Actions I created a fresh workspace and applied the patch, then I make "check-clang". I saw one test fail. The test that failed is Driver/crash-report.c. (BTW I need to recheck all the tests and make sure the test modifications are still needed, and likewise in the "extra" tests directory which is in the separate patch file). This is the failure mode for the Driver crash report. Is this sufficient detail to understand the test issue? If not what else can I provide? llvm/tools/clang/test/Driver/crash-report.c Exit Code: 1 Command Output (stderr): -- /site/spt/usr20/mblower/sptel9-ws/llorg/llvm/tools/clang/test/Driver/crash-report.c:20:11: error: expected string not found in input // CHECK: Preprocessed source(s) and associated run script(s) are located at: ``` ^ <stdin>:1:1: note: scanning from here <built-in>:1:10: fatal error: '-fobjc-runtime=gcc' file not found ^ If I make this change, adding the freestanding option, and rebuild "check-clang", then no tests are failing: diff --git a/test/Driver/crash-report.c b/test/Driver/crash-report.c index a3f1f9e..526e4dd 100644 --- a/test/Driver/crash-report.c +++ b/test/Driver/crash-report.c @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ // RUN: mkdir %t // RUN: not env TMPDIR=%t TEMP=%t TMP=%t RC_DEBUG_OPTIONS=1 \ // RUN: CC_PRINT_HEADERS=1 CC_LOG_DIAGNOSTICS=1 \ -// RUN: %clang -fsyntax-only %s \ +// RUN: %clang -fsyntax-only -ffreestanding %s // RUN: -F/tmp/ -I /tmp/ -idirafter /tmp/ -iquote /tmp/ -isystem /tmp/ \ // RUN: -iprefix /the/prefix -iwithprefix /tmp -iwithprefixbefore /tmp/ \ // RUN: -Xclang -internal-isystem -Xclang /tmp/ \ This comment was removed by mibintc. Comment Actions The patch to clang is the same as before. The modifications are to the test cases, I verified that all these test cases need modifications. I will also be updating the associated diff for clang/tools/extra, please review that as well. Without the test patches, these are the tests that fail (using check-all) . The failure mode is as described in a note I posted earlier this week, please let me know if you need further details. @jyknight Looking for your review and approval, thanks! Clang :: Driver/crash-report-header.h Clang :: Driver/crash-report-spaces.c Clang :: Driver/crash-report.c Clang :: Driver/rewrite-map-in-diagnostics.c Clang :: Driver/stdc-predef.c Clang :: Index/IBOutletCollection.m Clang :: Index/annotate-macro-args.m Clang :: Index/annotate-tokens-pp.c Clang :: Index/annotate-tokens.c Clang :: Index/c-index-getCursor-test.m Clang :: Index/get-cursor-macro-args.m Clang :: Index/get-cursor.cpp Clang :: Preprocessor/ignore-pragmas.c Clang Tools :: pp-trace/pp-trace-pragma-general.cpp Clang Tools :: pp-trace/pp-trace-pragma-opencl.cpp Clang-Unit :: Tooling/./ToolingTests/CommentHandlerTest.BasicTest1 Clang-Unit :: Tooling/./ToolingTests/CommentHandlerTest.BasicTest2 Clang-Unit :: Tooling/./ToolingTests/CommentHandlerTest.BasicTest3 Clang-Unit :: Tooling/./ToolingTests/CommentHandlerTest.IfBlock1 Clang-Unit :: Tooling/./ToolingTests/CommentHandlerTest.IfBlock2 Clang-Unit :: Tooling/./ToolingTests/CommentHandlerTest.IfBlock3 Clang-Unit :: Tooling/./ToolingTests/CommentHandlerTest.PPDirectives Comment Actions Hi. I also posted this question on IRC @erichkeane pushed a fix for D34158 which on Linux does a preinclude of stdc-predef.h; on Monday. Later on Monday he pulled it out because it caused 3 test failures and word-of-mouth that it also caused chromium build to fail. I haven't been watching this IRC so I didn't catch the details about the chromium build fail. if you know, can you send me details about how/why chromium build fails? also, the 3 tests (2 lit tests, 1 google test) which failed on buildbot do not fail on the linux servers in-house at Intel. Any clue about why that would be? I have a patched compiler, and verify that the new functionality is present. I build check-clang and there are no fails. I looked with llvm-lit at each of the 2 failing tests and they don't fail, I checked the google test libclang "skip ranges" and it doesn't fail also maybe i should redirect this question elsewhere. don't hesitate to let me know also i have used the self-build for D34158 and likewise those 3 tests do not fail. i used "llvm-lit -a" on one of the failing tests test/Modules/crash-vfs-path-symlink-component.m to see why the test was failing. i was not able to run the commands directly from the linux shell | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I would rather see a real check on include file inclusion (say, checking -H output) than a check for a macro.
Exact macro guard name is not a public interface at all. You might be lucky with current stdc-predef.h on Linux, but on other platforms it could be named differently.