1) implement parser and sema support for reading and verifying attribute(warnunusedresult).
2) rename hasLocalSideEffect to isUnusedResultAWarning, inverting the sense
of its result.
3) extend isUnusedResultAWarning to directly return the loc and range
info that should be reported to the user. Make it substantially more
precise in some cases than what was previously reported.
4) teach isUnusedResultAWarning about CallExpr to decls that are
pure/const/warnunusedresult, fixing a fixme.
5) change warn_attribute_wrong_decl_type to not pass in english strings, instead,
pass in integers and use %select.
llvm-svn: 64543
symbols from an SVal.
- Fixed a bug in EnvironmentManager::RemoveDeadBindings() where it did not mark
live all the symbols reachable from a live block-level expression.
- Fixed a bug in the retain/release checker where it did not stop tracking
symbols that 'escaped' via compound literals being assigned to something the
BasicStoreManager didn't reason about.
llvm-svn: 64534
we can define builtins such as fprintf, vfprintf, and
__builtin___fprintf_chk. Give a nice error message when we need to
implicitly declare a function like fprintf.
llvm-svn: 64526
printf-like functions, both builtin functions and those in the
C library. The function-call checker now queries this attribute do
determine if we have a printf-like function, rather than scanning
through the list of "known functions IDs". However, there are 5
functions they are not yet "builtins", so the function-call checker
handles them specifically still:
- fprintf and vfprintf: the builtins mechanism cannot (yet)
express FILE* arguments, so these can't be encoded.
- NSLog: the builtins mechanism cannot (yet) express NSString*
arguments, so this (and NSLogv) can't be encoded.
- asprintf and vasprintf: these aren't part of the C99 standard
library, so we really shouldn't be defining them as builtins in
the general case (and we don't seem to have the machinery to make
them builtins only on certain targets and depending on whether
extensions are enabled).
llvm-svn: 64512
etc.) when we perform name lookup on them. This ensures that we
produce the correct signature for these functions, which has two
practical impacts:
1) When we're supporting the "implicit function declaration" feature
of C99, these functions will be implicitly declared with the right
signature rather than as a function returning "int" with no
prototype. See PR3541 for the reason why this is important (hint:
GCC always predeclares these functions).
2) If users attempt to redeclare one of these library functions with
an incompatible signature, we produce a hard error.
This patch does a little bit of work to give reasonable error
messages. For example, when we hit case #1 we complain that we're
implicitly declaring this function with a specific signature, and then
we give a note that asks the user to include the appropriate header
(e.g., "please include <stdlib.h> or explicitly declare 'malloc'"). In
case #2, we show the type of the implicit builtin that was incorrectly
declared, so the user can see the problem. We could do better here:
for example, when displaying this latter error message we say
something like:
'strcpy' was implicitly declared here with type 'char *(char *, char
const *)'
but we should really print out a fake code line showing the
declaration, like this:
'strcpy' was implicitly declared here as:
char *strcpy(char *, char const *)
This would also be good for printing built-in candidates with C++
operator overloading.
The set of C library functions supported by this patch includes all
functions from the C99 specification's <stdlib.h> and <string.h> that
(a) are predefined by GCC and (b) have signatures that could cause
codegen issues if they are treated as functions with no prototype
returning and int. Future work could extend this set of functions to
other C library functions that we know about.
llvm-svn: 64504
- Fix emission of static functions with constructor attribute while I
was here.
<rdar://problem/6140899> [codegen] "static" and attribute-constructor interact poorly
llvm-svn: 64488
wine sources. This was happening because HighlightMacros was
calling EnterMainFile multiple times on the same preprocessor
object and getting an assert due to the new #line stuff (the
file in question was bison output with #line directives).
The fix for this is to not reenter the file. Instead,
relex the tokens in raw mode, swizzle them a bit and repreprocess
the token stream. An added bonus of this is that rewrite macros
will now hilight the macro definition as well as its uses. Woo.
llvm-svn: 64480
Currently only used for 128-bit integers.
Note that we can't use the fixed-width integer types for other integer
modes without other changes because glibc headers redefines (u)int*_t
and friends using the mode attribute. For example, this means that uint64_t
has to be compatible with unsigned __attribute((mode(DI))), and
uint64_t is currently defined to long long. And I have a feeling we'll
run into issues if we try to define uint64_t as something which isn't
either long or long long.
This doesn't get the alignment right in most cases, including
the 128-bit integer case; I'll file a PR shortly. The gist of the issue
is that the targets don't really expose the information necessary to
figure out the alignment outside of the target description, so there's a
non-trivial amount of work involved in getting it working right. That
said, the alignment used is conservative, so the only issue with the
current implementation is ABI compatibility.
This makes it trivial to add some sort of "bitwidth" attribute to make
arbitrary-width integers; I'll do that in a followup.
We could also use this for stuff like the following for compatibility
with gcc, but I have a feeling it would be a better idea for clang to be
consistent between C and C++ modes rather than follow gcc's example for
C mode.
struct {unsigned long long x : 33;} x;
unsigned long long a(void) {return x.x+1;}
llvm-svn: 64434
given name in a given scope is marked as "overloadable", every
function declaration and definition with that same name and in that
same scope needs to have the "overloadable" attribute. Essentially,
the "overloadable" attribute is not part of attribute merging, so it
must be specified even for redeclarations. This keeps users from
trying to be too sneaky for their own good:
double sin(double) __attribute__((overloadable)); // too sneaky
#include <math.h>
Previously, this would have made "sin" overloadable, and therefore
given it a mangled name. Now, we get an error inside math.h when we
see a (re)declaration of "sin" that doesn't have the "overloadable"
attribute.
llvm-svn: 64414
ABI to the CodeGen library. Since C++ code-generation is so
incomplete, we can't exercise much of this mangling code. However, a
few smoke tests show that it's doing the same thing as GCC. When C++
codegen matures, we'll extend the ABI tester to verify name-mangling
as well, and complete the implementation here.
At this point, the major client of name mangling is in the uses of the
new "overloadable" attribute in C, which allows overloading. Any
"overloadable" function in C (or in an extern "C" block in C++) will
be mangled the same way that the corresponding C++ function would be
mangled.
llvm-svn: 64413
_GCC_LIMITS_H_ is defined, when __GNUC__ is defined.
Also, we need to stay away from possible conflicts with header guards.
We should use CLANG_ to prefix all header guards.
llvm-svn: 64408
union subobject initialization before checking whether the next
initiailizer was actually a designated initializer. This led to
spurious "excess elements in union initializer" errors. Thanks to
rdivacky for reporting the bug!
llvm-svn: 64392
complex conversions where the conversion between the real types is an
integral promotion. This is how G++ handles complex promotions for its
complex integer extension.
llvm-svn: 64344
system. Since C99 doesn't have overloading and C++ doesn't have
_Complex, there is no specification for this. Here's what I think
makes sense.
Complex conversions come in several flavors:
- Complex promotions: a complex -> complex conversion where the
underlying real-type conversion is a floating-point promotion. GCC
seems to call this a promotion, EDG does something else. This is
given "promotion" rank for determining the best viable function.
- Complex conversions: a complex -> complex conversion that is
not a complex promotion. This is given "conversion" rank for
determining the best viable function.
- Complex-real conversions: a real -> complex or complex -> real
conversion. This is given "conversion" rank for determining the
best viable function.
These rules are the same for C99 (when using the "overloadable"
attribute) and C++. However, there is one difference in the handling
of floating-point promotions: in C99, float -> long double and double
-> long double are considered promotions (so we give them "promotion"
rank), while C++ considers these conversions ("conversion" rank).
llvm-svn: 64343
for non-external names whose address becomes the template
argument. This completes C++ [temp.arg.nontype]p1.
Note that our interpretation of C++ [temp.arg.nontype]p1b3 differs
from EDG's interpretation (we're stricter, and GCC agrees with
us). They're opening a core issue about the matter.
llvm-svn: 64317
template specialization (e.g., std::vector<int> would now be
well-formed, since it relies on a default argument for the Allocator
template parameter).
This is much less interesting than one might expect, since (1) we're
not actually using the default arguments for anything important, such
as naming an actual Decl, and (2) we'll often need to instantiate the
default arguments to check their well-formedness. The real fun will
come later.
llvm-svn: 64310
pointer-to-member-data non-type template parameters. Also, get
consistent about what it means to returned a bool from
CheckTemplateArgument.
llvm-svn: 64305
Chris Lattner