Chris pointed out that while the comparison is certainly problematic
and does not have well-defined behavior, it isn't any worse than some
of the other abuses that we merely warn about and doesn't need to make
the compilation fail.
Revert the release notes change (r159766) now that this is just a new warning.
llvm-svn: 159939
This may turn out to be a controversial change, due to string literals being
uniqued at link time, but Apple's docs only say "The compiler makes such
object constants unique on a per-module basis..."[1] without actually saying
what a "module" is. (It's not a clang module.) Furthermore, this uniqueness
guarantee often can't be guaranteed once the string has been passed through
framework code.
If this does turn out very controversial, we could downgrade this to a
DefaultError warning for strings, and leave it as a true Error for other
kinds of literals.
(<rdar://problem/11300873>)
[1]: https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/Strings/Articles/CreatingStrings.html
llvm-svn: 159766
This adds support for the tls_model attribute. This allows the user to
choose a TLS model that is better than what LLVM would select by
default. For example, a variable might be declared as:
__thread int x __attribute__((tls_model("initial-exec")));
if it will not be used in a shared library that is dlopen'ed.
This depends on LLVM r159077.
llvm-svn: 159078
-Wsometimes-uninitialized diagnostics to make it clearer that the cause
of the issue may be a condition which must always evaluate to true or
false, rather than an uninitialized variable.
To emphasize this, add a new note with a fixit which removes the
impossible condition or replaces it with a constant.
Also, downgrade the diagnostic from -Wsometimes-uninitialized to
-Wconditional-uninitialized when it applies to a range-based for loop,
since the condition is not written explicitly in the code in that case.
llvm-svn: 157511
between unscoped enumerations and class template member specializations,
whose behavior is currently under discussion in CWG (and for which there
is a preference to not implement the currently-standardized wording).
llvm-svn: 153464
the release notes despite their awesomeness. If we had a thorough
discussion of the performance of Clang in 2.9 vs. 3.0, the first would
be more relevant, but we don't. The serialization stuff hopefully isn't
terribly visible to end users.
Objections to these omissions are of course welcome. =]
llvm-svn: 145336
accurate than my original notes were based on IRC conversations. Windows
folks, please edit as needed to make this closer to the truth if I've
still got it wrong.
llvm-svn: 145309
add a bit to that section about the many bug-finding warnings that Clang
has grown since 2.9 as this is one of the more visible new additions.
llvm-svn: 145307
Richard Smith