On operating systems like the BSDs, it is typically the case that
/usr/bin/python does not exist. We should therefore use /usr/bin/env
instead. This is also done in various other scripts in tools/.
llvm-svn: 216945
With targeting i686-win32,
error: 'error' diagnostics seen but not expected:
File clang/test/CXX/drs/dr5xx.cpp Line 521: implicit instantiation of undefined template 'dr547::X<void () __attribute__((thiscall)) const>'
File clang/test/CXX/drs/dr5xx.cpp Line 518: implicit instantiation of undefined template 'dr547::X<void () __attribute__((thiscall)) const>'
File clang/test/CXX/drs/dr5xx.cpp Line 518: implicit instantiation of undefined template 'dr547::X<void () __attribute__((thiscall)) const>'
error: 'note' diagnostics seen but not expected:
File clang/test/CXX/drs/dr5xx.cpp Line 516: template is declared here
File clang/test/CXX/drs/dr5xx.cpp Line 521: in instantiation of function template specialization 'dr547::f<void () __attribute__((thiscall)) const, dr547::S>' requested here
File clang/test/CXX/drs/dr5xx.cpp Line 516: template is declared here
File clang/test/CXX/drs/dr5xx.cpp Line 516: template is declared here
7 errors generated.
llvm-svn: 216841
A couple of these arguments were passed by void* as a rather extreme
example of pimpling. Adjusting this to a more classic form of the idiom
(involving forward declarations) makes this more legible and allows
explicit passing of ownership via std::unique_ptr.
llvm-svn: 216785
This avoids encoding information about the function prototype into the
thunk at the cost of some function prototype bitcast gymnastics.
Fixes PR20653.
llvm-svn: 216782
in the super class, do not issue the warning about property
in current class's protocol will not be auto synthesized.
// rdar://18179833
llvm-svn: 216769
People have been incorrectly using "-analyzer-disable-checker" to
silence analyzer warnings on a file, when analyzing a project. Add
the "-analyzer-disable-all-checks" option, which would allow the
suppression and suggest it as part of the error message for
"-analyzer-disable-checker". The idea here is to compose this with
"--analyze" so that users can selectively opt out specific files from
static analysis.
llvm-svn: 216763
I suspect llvm::ilist should take elements by unique_ptr, since it does
take ownership of the element (by stitching it into the linked list) -
one day.
llvm-svn: 216761
Do not warn when property declared in class's protocol will be auto-synthesized
by its uper class implementation because super class has also declared this
property while this class has not. Continue to warn if current class
has declared the property also (because this declaration will not result
in a 2nd synthesis).
rdar://18152478
llvm-svn: 216753
Again, if shared ownership is the right model here (I assume it is,
given graph algorithms & such) this could be tidied up (the 'release'
call removed in favor of something safer) by having
IntrunsiveRefCntPointer constructible from a unique_ptr.
(& honestly I'd probably favor taking a page out of shared_ptr's book,
allowing implicit construction from a unique_ptr rvalue, and only allow
explicit from a raw pointer - currently IntrusiveRefCntPointer can
implicitly own from a raw pointer, which seems unsafe)
llvm-svn: 216752
In theory, it'd be nice if we could move to a case where all buried
pointers were buried via unique_ptr to demonstrate that the program had
finished with the value (that we could really have cleanly deallocated
it) but instead chose to bury it.
I think the main reason that's not possible right now is the various
IntrusiveRefCntPtrs in the Frontend, sharing ownership for a variety of
compiler bits (see the various similar
"CompilerInstance::releaseAndLeak*" functions). I have yet to figure out
their correct ownership semantics - but perhaps, even if the
intrusiveness can be removed, the shared ownership may yet remain and
that would lead to a non-unique burying as is there today. (though we
could model that a little better - by passing in a shared_ptr, etc -
rather than needing the two step that's currently used in those other
releaseAndLeak* functions)
This might be a bit more robust if BuryPointer took the boolean:
BuryPointer(bool, unique_ptr<T>)
and the choice to bury was made internally - that way, even when
DisableFree was not set, the unique_ptr would still be null in the
caller and there'd be no chance of accidentally having a different
codepath where the value is used after burial in !DisableFree, but it
becomes null only in DisableFree, etc...
llvm-svn: 216742
Eli Bendersky