[Fixed Point Arithmetic] Addition of the remaining fixed point types and their saturated equivalents

Authored by leonardchan on May 15 2018, 4:03 PM.



This diff includes changes for the remaining _Fract and _Sat fixed point types.

signed short _Fract s_short_fract;
signed _Fract s_fract;
signed long _Fract s_long_fract;
unsigned short _Fract u_short_fract;
unsigned _Fract u_fract;
unsigned long _Fract u_long_fract;

// Aliased fixed point types
short _Accum short_accum;
_Accum accum;
long _Accum long_accum;
short _Fract short_fract;
_Fract fract;
long _Fract long_fract;

// Saturated fixed point types
_Sat signed short _Accum sat_s_short_accum;
_Sat signed _Accum sat_s_accum;
_Sat signed long _Accum sat_s_long_accum;
_Sat unsigned short _Accum sat_u_short_accum;
_Sat unsigned _Accum sat_u_accum;
_Sat unsigned long _Accum sat_u_long_accum;
_Sat signed short _Fract sat_s_short_fract;
_Sat signed _Fract sat_s_fract;
_Sat signed long _Fract sat_s_long_fract;
_Sat unsigned short _Fract sat_u_short_fract;
_Sat unsigned _Fract sat_u_fract;
_Sat unsigned long _Fract sat_u_long_fract;

// Aliased saturated fixed point types
_Sat short _Accum sat_short_accum;
_Sat _Accum sat_accum;
_Sat long _Accum sat_long_accum;
_Sat short _Fract sat_short_fract;
_Sat _Fract sat_fract;
_Sat long _Fract sat_long_fract;

This diff only allows for declaration of these fixed point types. Assignment and other operations done on fixed point types according to http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1169.pdf will be added in future patches.

Diff Detail

leonardchan created this revision.May 15 2018, 4:03 PM
leonardchan retitled this revision from Addition of the remaining fixed point types and their saturated equivalents to [Fixed Point Arithmetic] Addition of the remaining fixed point types and their saturated equivalents.May 16 2018, 9:41 AM

Updated formatting

ebevhan added inline comments.
206 ↗(On Diff #147568)

This error should be reworded.

Perhaps '_Sat' specifier is only valid on '_Fract' or '_Accum', not '%0'.

1139 ↗(On Diff #147568)

This variable name should probably be a different case.

1430 ↗(On Diff #147568)

You should probably use the 'getCorrespondingSaturatingType' function instead of disambiguating the whole thing here again.

45 ↗(On Diff #147568)

What about typedefs with the _Sat specifier on them?

Ka-Ka added a subscriber: Ka-Ka.May 23 2018, 1:07 AM
leonardchan marked 4 inline comments as done.
leonardchan added inline comments.
1430 ↗(On Diff #147568)

Also used getCorrespondingSignedType() for the signage

Forgot to include tests for the _Fract and _Sat keywords in c++ usage

ebevhan added inline comments.May 31 2018, 12:59 AM
6551 ↗(On Diff #149169)

These should probably be in ASTContext directly.

83 ↗(On Diff #149169)

I don't think the saturating types need separate configurations. Embedded-C says "Each saturating fixed-point type has the same representation and the same rank as its corresponding primary fixed-point type."

3614 ↗(On Diff #149169)

Is there a use for the isSat parameter?

1123 ↗(On Diff #149169)

Handling this case here means that placing _Sat on something other than exactly a fixed-point type is a parsing error rather than a semantic error. How does this handle _Sat on sugared types? Should _Sat on things like typedefs work?

typedef _Fract myfract;
_Sat myfract F;

The primary issue (and this is one that we have encountered as well) is that you cannot have a true _Sat typedef since _Sat only exists as part of builtin types. You need to desugar/canonicalize the type and then do getCorrespondingSaturatingType (or have getCorrespondingSaturatingType look at the canonical type internally).

1135 ↗(On Diff #149169)

IsFixedPointType can be used here as well.

1165 ↗(On Diff #149169)


1410 ↗(On Diff #149169)

The logic is a bit reversed. The default should be to select the signed variant, and if the TSS is unsigned, then convert it to the unsigned variant.

1609 ↗(On Diff #149169)

Other qualifiers like const and volatile are handled down here. Should the _Sat application be performed somewhere here instead?

leonardchan marked 7 inline comments as done.
leonardchan added inline comments.
1123 ↗(On Diff #149169)

I think _Sat is analogous to _Complex where it only works with specific builtin types, albeit the only builtin type _Complex doesn't work with is _Bool.

Currently this example would throw the error '_Sat' specifier is only valid on '_Fract' or '_Accum', not 'type-name' which is similar to what _Complex does when paired with a typedef:

typedef double mydouble;
mydouble _Complex D;  // _Complex type-name' is invalid

I don't see this as a big problem right now, but am willing to come back to this in the future if it becomes more urgent. For now, I added a test that asserts this error is thrown.

1410 ↗(On Diff #149169)

Using getCorrespondingUnsignedType(). Also changed getCorrespondingUnsignedType() to accept fixed point types.

ebevhan added inline comments.Jun 1 2018, 12:45 AM
2882 ↗(On Diff #149360)

This probably belongs up near the other predicates.

Also I think it's more common to simply pass QualType instead of a const QualType&.

1123 ↗(On Diff #149169)

That sounds reasonable. I have no strong opinions on it and I don't think we use the functionality anyway.

1612 ↗(On Diff #149360)

The braces aren't needed.

leonardchan marked an inline comment as done.

@ebevhan Does everything look good in this patch? I'm almost done with the next one. Writing tests for it still.

leonardchan added subscribers: rjmccall, jfb.

Yes, it looks good to me.

Actually, wait! One last thing I missed.

670 ↗(On Diff #149533)

This should take a PrintingPolicy like the others.

ebevhan added inline comments.Jun 7 2018, 4:52 AM
1612 ↗(On Diff #149533)

Also, this does not seem to invalidate the declarator.

leonardchan added inline comments.Jun 7 2018, 8:01 AM
670 ↗(On Diff #149533)

I think the PrintingPolicy may not be necessary because it's only used for getting the name of the current TypeSpecType. More specifically, for just differentiating vetween "bool" and "_Bool" for TST_bool. It also seems that other setters that don't touch TypeSpecType use PrintingPolicy, like SetTypeSpecComplex or SetTypeSpecSign

1612 ↗(On Diff #149533)

How so? I have tests under test/Frontend/fixed_point_errors.c that check for an error thrown if _Sat is used with non-fixed point types.

ebevhan added inline comments.Jun 7 2018, 8:14 AM
670 ↗(On Diff #149533)

You are correct, the ones that don't need it don't take it. I'm just being selfish since I need it downstream to disambiguate __sat and _Sat.

It's fine the way it is.

1612 ↗(On Diff #149533)

Hm, that is true. We don't have it downstream either. I'm not sure what the purpose of doing it is, but other invalid specifiers do declarator.setInvalidType(true);

I guess it isn't needed, just curious as to why it's done for some other ones.

ebevhan accepted this revision.Jun 13 2018, 4:34 AM

LGTM, but I'm not a code owner so maybe someone else should chime in if they have any input.

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Jun 13 2018, 4:34 AM
ebevhan added inline comments.Jun 13 2018, 4:36 AM
44 ↗(On Diff #149533)

Wait; should these dso_local be {{.*}}?

leonardchan marked an inline comment as done.
leonardchan added inline comments.
44 ↗(On Diff #149533)

They should, I forgot to get the latest diff which checks this since not all targets produce dso_local.

ebevhan accepted this revision.Jun 14 2018, 6:25 AM
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.