Apologies for the slow reply.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Måns Rullgård [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: 05 February 2015 12:56
> To: Maciej W. Rozycki
> Cc: Toma Tabacu; Daniel Sanders; Ralf Baechle; Paul Burton; Paul Bolle;
> Steven J. Hill; Manuel Lauss; Jim Quinlan; firstname.lastname@example.org; linux-
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] MIPS: LLVMLinux: Silence unicode warnings when
> preprocessing assembly.
> "Maciej W. Rozycki" <email@example.com> writes:
> > On Thu, 5 Feb 2015, Toma Tabacu wrote:
> >> > 2. It considers these character pairs to be unicode escapes in the first
> >> > place given that they do not follow the syntax required for such
> >> > escapes, that is `\unnnn', where `n' are hex digits.
> >> >
> >> It doesn't actually treat them as unicode escapes, but it still warns
> >> the user, in case they were meant to be unicode escapes. Here's the
> >> warning message:
> >> arch/mips/include/asm/asmmacro.h:197:51: warning: \u used with no
> following hex digits; treating as '\' followed by identifier [-Wunicode]
> >> .word 0x41000000 | (\rt << 16) | (\rd << 11) | (\u << 5) | (\sel)
> >> ^
> >> I'll add it to the summary in v2.
> > Thanks, that makes things clearer. It always makes sense to include the
> > exact error message produced where applicable or otherwise people do not
> > necessarily know what the matter is.
> >> > Of course it may be reasonable for us to work this bug around as we've
> >> > been doing for years with GCC, but has the issue been reported back to
> >> > clang maintainers? What was their response?
> >> >
> >> It hasn't been reported, but I don't think they would agree with removing
> >> unicode escape sequences from the assembler-with-cpp mode because it is
> >> currently being used for other languages as well, not just assembly.
> > First, preprocessing rules surely have to be language specific. The C
> > language standard does not specify what the preprocessor is meant to do
> > (if anything) for other languages. GCC or clang -- that's no different.
> > The assembly language has a different syntax and `\u' has a different
> > meaning in the context of assembly macro expansion than it would have in a
> > name of a symbol, where such a Unicode escape sequence might indeed be
> > interpreted as such and character encoded propagated to the symbol
> > produced. But that's up to the assembler -- GAS for example does not
> > AFAIK support Unicode escape sequences in symbol names right now, but I
> > suppose such a feature could be added if desired.
Pre-processed assembly is somewhat unusual in that it has traditionally been
pre-processed with a pre-processor designed for the C language. It's certainly
possible to have assembly specific tweaks (GCC has a couple) but it is still a C
pre-processor at heart. It doesn't know anything about the assembly language,
it just happens to be similar enough to be usable.
From the pre-processors point of view, '\u' is two pre-processor tokens '\' and
the identifier 'u'. However, with following hex digits it would have been an
starting with a universal character name. Clang's warning is effectively saying
the former is more likely to be the intention. That's probably not as true for
pre-processed assembly as it is for C/C++.
> > Which prompts another question of course: how does the clang C compiler
> > represent Unicode characters in identifiers in its assembly output?
They're emitted as multi-byte characters.
> > I have looked into the C language standard and it appears to me like the
> > translation phase to interpret universal character names at has not been
> > defined. This is probably why the standard does specify the result of
> > pasting preprocessor tokens together as undefined if a universal character
> > name is produced this way.
> That is my interpretation as well.
It's my understanding that they should be interpreted when pre-processing tokens
are formed. This is based on the fact that the universal character names are
the grammar for identifiers and are not discussed in a separate translation
I agree that it doesn't explicitly state that though.
> > Consequently I think an important question in this context is: does
> > clang's preprocessor actually convert these sequences anyhow before
> > passing them down to the compiler? How for example does C output from a
> > trivial example that contains such Unicode escape sequences look like
> > then?
Clang is converting them to multibyte characters during pre-processing.
> >> One such language is Haskell (ghc, to be more specific), for which
> >> the clang developers had to actually stop the preprocessor from
> >> enforcing the C universal character name restrictions in
> >> assembler-with-cpp mode, which suggests that ghc wants the
> >> preprocessor to check for unicode escape sequences.
> >> At the moment, we can either disable -Wunicode for asmmacro.h or
> >> refrain from using '\u' as an identifier.
> > To be clear: it's `u' here that is the identifier, the leading `\' is
> > merely how assembly syntax has been specified for references to macro
> > arguments. And TBH I find banning any macro arguments starting with `u'
> > rather silly.
That's the crux of the issue. Had it been followed by some hex-digits,
it would be an identifier '\u1234' and not a '\' followed by the identifier 'u'.
Clang currently thinks the former is more likely and warns.
I do agree that warning about all macro arguments beginning with 'u' is silly
Perhaps for assembler-with-cpp mode the warning should be suppressed when
it's the first character of an identifier.
> > I'm leaning towards considering having -Wunicode disabled for all
> > assembly sources, or maybe even for the whole Linux compilation, the
> > right solution. It's not like we have a need for Unicode identifiers.
> It might be an idea to disable -Wunicode and have checkpatch warn about
> Unicode escapes instead if people are worried about this. Personally, I
> doubt there's much cause for concern here.
> Måns Rullgård
I'm fine with disabling -Wunicode if that's our preferred solution.