pretty. In particular this makes it much easier for me to read messages
such as:
x.cc:42: ?: has lower ...
Where I'm inclined to associate the third ':' with a missing column
number, but in fact column numbers have been turned off. Similar
punctuation collisions happened elsewhere as well.
llvm-svn: 133121
Change the output for -Wshift-overflow and
-Wshift-sign-overflow to an unsigned hexadecimal. It makes
more sense for looking at bits than a signed decimal does.
Also, change the diagnostic's wording from "overrides"
to "sets".
This uses a new optional argument in APInt::toString()
that adds the '0x' prefix to hexademical numbers.
This fixes PR 9651.
Patch by nobled@dreamwidth.org!
llvm-svn: 133033
as constant size arrays. This has slightly different semantics in some insane cases, but allows
us to accept some constructs that GCC does. Continue to be pedantic in -std=c99 and other
modes. This addressed rdar://8733881 - error "variable-sized object may not be initialized"; g++ accepts same code
llvm-svn: 132983
- Move a test from test/SemaTemplate/instantiate-expr-3.cpp, it did not belong there
- Incomplete and abstract types are considered hard errors
llvm-svn: 132979
This is a follow-up to r132565, and should address the rest of PR9969:
Warn about cases such as
int foo(A a, bool b) {
return a + b ? 1 : 2; // user probably meant a + (b ? 1 : 2);
}
also when + is an overloaded operator call.
llvm-svn: 132784
Warn in cases such as "x + someCondition ? 42 : 0;",
where the condition expression looks arithmetic, and has
a right-hand side that looks boolean.
This (partly) addresses http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=9969
llvm-svn: 132565
The size of the array may not be aligned according to alignment of its elements if an alignment attribute is
specified in a typedef. Fixes rdar://8665729 & http://llvm.org/PR5637.
llvm-svn: 130242
-Wwrite-strings. First and foremost, once the positive form of the flag
was passed, it could never be disabled by passing -Wno-write-strings.
Also, the diagnostic engine couldn't in turn use -Wwrite-strings to
control diagnostics (as GCC does) because it was essentially hijacked to
drive the language semantics.
Fix this by giving CC1 a clean '-fconst-strings' flag to enable
const-qualified strings in C and ObjC compilations. Corresponding
'-fno-const-strings' is also added. Then the driver is taught to
introduce '-fconst-strings' in the CC1 command when '-Wwrite-strings'
dominates.
This entire flag is basically GCC-bug-compatibility driven, so we also
match GCC's bug where '-w' doesn't actually disable -Wwrite-strings. I'm
open to changing this though as it seems insane.
llvm-svn: 130051
gcc's unused warnings which don't get emitted if the function is referenced even in an unevaluated context
(e.g. in templates, sizeof, etc.). Also, saying that a function is 'unused' because it won't get codegen'ed
is somewhat misleading.
- Don't emit 'unused' warnings for functions that are referenced in any part of the user's code.
- A warning that an internal function/variable won't get emitted is useful though, so introduce
-Wunneeded-internal-declaration which will warn if a function/variable with internal linkage is not
"needed" ('used' from the codegen perspective), e.g:
static void foo() { }
template <int>
void bar() {
foo();
}
test.cpp:1:13: warning: function 'foo' is not needed and will not be emitted
static void foo() { }
^
Addresses rdar://8733476.
llvm-svn: 129794
CL_AddressableVoid is the expression classification used for void
expressions whose address can be taken, i.e. the result of [], *
or void variable references in C, as opposed to things like the
result of a void function call.
llvm-svn: 129783
rewriting the literal when the value is integral. It is not uncommon to
see code written as:
const int kBigNumber = 42e5;
Without any real awareness that this is no longer an ICE. The note helps
automate and ease the process of fixing code that violates the warning.
llvm-svn: 129243
definitely have a path leading to them, and possibly have a path leading
to them; reflect that distinction in the warning text emitted.
llvm-svn: 129126
marked explicitly as uninitialized through direct self initialization:
int x = x;
With r128894 we prevented warnings about this code, and this patch
teaches the analysis engine to continue analyzing subsequent uses of
'x'. This should wrap up PR9624.
There is still an open question of whether we should suppress the
maybe-uninitialized warnings resulting from variables initialized in
this fashion. The definitely-uninitialized uses should always be warned.
llvm-svn: 128932
int x = x;
GCC disables its warnings on this construct as a way of indicating that
the programmer intentionally wants the variable to be uninitialized.
Only the warning on the initializer is turned off in this iteration.
This makes the code a lot more ugly, but starts commenting the
surprising behavior here. This is a WIP, I want to refactor it
substantially for clarity, and to determine whether subsequent warnings
should be suppressed or not.
llvm-svn: 128894
1) Change the CFG to include the DeclStmt for conditional variables, instead of using the condition itself as a faux DeclStmt.
2) Update ExprEngine (the static analyzer) to understand (1), so not to regress.
3) Update UninitializedValues.cpp to initialize all tracked variables to Uninitialized at the start of the function/method.
4) Only use the SelfReferenceChecker (SemaDecl.cpp) on global variables, leaving the dataflow analysis to handle other cases.
The combination of (1) and (3) allows the dataflow-based -Wuninitialized to find self-init problems when the initializer
contained control-flow.
llvm-svn: 128858
Note this can potentially be enhanced to detect if the __block variable
is actually written by the block, or only when the block "escapes" or
is actually used, but that requires more analysis than it is probably worth
for this simple check.
llvm-svn: 128681
Chandler Carruth