I don't remember why I didn't make alloc_size only applicable to
Functions a year ago, but I can't see any compelling reason not to do
so now.
Fixes PR31453.
llvm-svn: 290353
This is a recommit of r290149, which was reverted in r290169 due to msan
failures. msan was failing because we were calling
`isMostDerivedAnUnsizedArray` on an invalid designator, which caused us
to read uninitialized memory. To fix this, the logic of the caller of
said function was simplified, and we now have a `!Invalid` assert in
`isMostDerivedAnUnsizedArray`, so we can catch this particular bug more
easily in the future.
Fingers crossed that this patch sticks this time. :)
Original commit message:
This patch does three things:
- Gives us the alloc_size attribute in clang, which lets us infer the
number of bytes handed back to us by malloc/realloc/calloc/any user
functions that act in a similar manner.
- Teaches our constexpr evaluator that evaluating some `const` variables
is OK sometimes. This is why we have a change in
test/SemaCXX/constant-expression-cxx11.cpp and other seemingly
unrelated tests. Richard Smith okay'ed this idea some time ago in
person.
- Uniques some Blocks in CodeGen, which was reviewed separately at
D26410. Lack of uniquing only really shows up as a problem when
combined with our new eagerness in the face of const.
llvm-svn: 290297
This commit fails MSan when running test/CodeGen/object-size.c in
a confusing way. After some discussion with George, it isn't really
clear what is going on here. We can make the MSan failure go away by
testing for the invalid bit, but *why* things are invalid isn't clear.
And yet, other code in the surrounding area is doing precisely this and
testing for invalid.
George is going to take a closer look at this to better understand the
nature of the failure and recommit it, for now backing it out to clean
up MSan builds.
llvm-svn: 290169
This patch does three things:
- Gives us the alloc_size attribute in clang, which lets us infer the
number of bytes handed back to us by malloc/realloc/calloc/any user
functions that act in a similar manner.
- Teaches our constexpr evaluator that evaluating some `const` variables
is OK sometimes. This is why we have a change in
test/SemaCXX/constant-expression-cxx11.cpp and other seemingly
unrelated tests. Richard Smith okay'ed this idea some time ago in
person.
- Uniques some Blocks in CodeGen, which was reviewed separately at
D26410. Lack of uniquing only really shows up as a problem when
combined with our new eagerness in the face of const.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D14274
llvm-svn: 290149
George Burgess IV