Nested implicit casts?

Clang Frontend
1

Hello.

Dumping the AST for the following program:

int f(signed char v) { return v < 1U; }

we obtain an implicit cast expression that (immediately) contains another implicit cast expression:

int f(signed char v) (CompoundStmt 0x174c530 <test.c:1:22, col:39>
   (ReturnStmt 0x174c510 <col:24, col:35>
     (BinaryOperator 0x174c4d0 <col:31, col:35> 'int' '<'
       (ImplicitCastExpr 0x174c4a0 <col:31> 'unsigned int' <Unknown>
         (ImplicitCastExpr 0x174c470 <col:31> 'int' <IntegralCast>
           (DeclRefExpr 0x174c3f8 <col:31> 'signed char' ParmVar='v' 0x174c2c0)))
       (IntegerLiteral 0x174c430 <col:35> 'unsigned int' 1))))

Is that meant to be OK?

I am asking because, when looking to dumps from older clang revisions, I got the (probably false) impression that some effort was done in order to merge chains of consecutive implicit casts into a single one.

Is it the case that now the two casts are not merged because they have different kind (one is an IntegralCast, the other is Unknown)?

Thanks in advance for any explanation,
Enea Zaffanella.

2

Hello.

Dumping the AST for the following program:

int f(signed char v) { return v < 1U; }

we obtain an implicit cast expression that (immediately) contains
another implicit cast expression:

int f(signed char v) (CompoundStmt 0x174c530 <test.c:1:22, col:39>
  (ReturnStmt 0x174c510 <col:24, col:35>
    (BinaryOperator 0x174c4d0 <col:31, col:35> 'int' '<'
      (ImplicitCastExpr 0x174c4a0 <col:31> 'unsigned int' <Unknown>
        (ImplicitCastExpr 0x174c470 <col:31> 'int' <IntegralCast>
          (DeclRefExpr 0x174c3f8 <col:31> 'signed char' ParmVar='v'
0x174c2c0)))
      (IntegerLiteral 0x174c430 <col:35> 'unsigned int' 1))))

Is that meant to be OK?

I am asking because, when looking to dumps from older clang revisions, I
got the (probably false) impression that some effort was done in order
to merge chains of consecutive implicit casts into a single one.

When those conversions are conceptually the same kind of conversion, we do want to merge the two implicit casts into a single implicit cast.

Is it the case that now the two casts are not merged because they have
different kind (one is an IntegralCast, the other is Unknown)?

Yes, although we'd really like to fix that outer cast so that it is not of type 'Unknown'. The unknown cast kind is meant to go away.

  - Doug

3

Yes, precisely, although that's actually a bug in this case (both
casts should be of type IntegralCast).

-Eli

4

Enea Zaffanella wrote:

Hello.

Dumping the AST for the following program:

int f(signed char v) { return v < 1U; }

we obtain an implicit cast expression that (immediately) contains
another implicit cast expression:

int f(signed char v) (CompoundStmt 0x174c530 <test.c:1:22, col:39>
   (ReturnStmt 0x174c510 <col:24, col:35>
     (BinaryOperator 0x174c4d0 <col:31, col:35> 'int' '<'
       (ImplicitCastExpr 0x174c4a0 <col:31> 'unsigned int' <Unknown>
         (ImplicitCastExpr 0x174c470 <col:31> 'int' <IntegralCast>
           (DeclRefExpr 0x174c3f8 <col:31> 'signed char' ParmVar='v'
0x174c2c0)))
       (IntegerLiteral 0x174c430 <col:35> 'unsigned int' 1))))

Is that meant to be OK?
  

No, unknown casts should never appear in the AST in the first place;
they're a transitional construct.

Sebastian