a warning
This commit separates out the warn_nsconsumed_attribute_mismatch and
warn_nsreturns_retained_attribute_mismatch diagnostic into a warning and error.
This is needed to avoid a module import regression introduced by r313717 that
turned these errors into warnings and started promoting them only when needed,
which caused an error when importing a module as it had different warning
settings.
rdar://36265651
llvm-svn: 321775
'#pragma pack (pop)' and suspicious uses of '#pragma pack' in included files
The second recommit (r309106) was reverted because the "non-default #pragma
pack value chages the alignment of struct or union members in the included file"
warning proved to be too aggressive for external projects like Chromium
(https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=749197). This recommit
makes the problematic warning a non-default one, and gives it the
-Wpragma-pack-suspicious-include warning option.
The first recommit (r308441) caused a "non-default #pragma pack value might
change the alignment of struct or union members in the included file" warning
in LLVM itself. This recommit tweaks the added warning to avoid warnings for
#includes that don't have any records that are affected by the non-default
alignment. This tweak avoids the previously emitted warning in LLVM.
Original message:
This commit adds a new -Wpragma-pack warning. It warns in the following cases:
- When a translation unit is missing terminating #pragma pack (pop) directives.
- When entering an included file if the current alignment value as determined
by '#pragma pack' directives is different from the default alignment value.
- When leaving an included file that changed the state of the current alignment
value.
rdar://10184173
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35484
llvm-svn: 309386
The warning fires on non-suspicious code in Chromium. Reverting until a
solution is figured out.
> Recommit r308327 2nd time: Add a warning for missing
> '#pragma pack (pop)' and suspicious uses of '#pragma pack' in included files
>
> The first recommit (r308441) caused a "non-default #pragma pack value might
> change the alignment of struct or union members in the included file" warning
> in LLVM itself. This recommit tweaks the added warning to avoid warnings for
> #includes that don't have any records that are affected by the non-default
> alignment. This tweak avoids the previously emitted warning in LLVM.
>
> Original message:
>
> This commit adds a new -Wpragma-pack warning. It warns in the following cases:
>
> - When a translation unit is missing terminating #pragma pack (pop) directives.
> - When entering an included file if the current alignment value as determined
> by '#pragma pack' directives is different from the default alignment value.
> - When leaving an included file that changed the state of the current alignment
> value.
>
> rdar://10184173
>
> Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35484
llvm-svn: 309186
'#pragma pack (pop)' and suspicious uses of '#pragma pack' in included files
The first recommit (r308441) caused a "non-default #pragma pack value might
change the alignment of struct or union members in the included file" warning
in LLVM itself. This recommit tweaks the added warning to avoid warnings for
#includes that don't have any records that are affected by the non-default
alignment. This tweak avoids the previously emitted warning in LLVM.
Original message:
This commit adds a new -Wpragma-pack warning. It warns in the following cases:
- When a translation unit is missing terminating #pragma pack (pop) directives.
- When entering an included file if the current alignment value as determined
by '#pragma pack' directives is different from the default alignment value.
- When leaving an included file that changed the state of the current alignment
value.
rdar://10184173
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35484
llvm-svn: 309106
This seems to have broken the sanitizer-x86_64-linux buildbot. Reverting until
it's fixed, especially since this landed just before the 5.0 branch.
> This commit adds a new -Wpragma-pack warning. It warns in the following cases:
>
> - When a translation unit is missing terminating #pragma pack (pop) directives.
> - When entering an included file if the current alignment value as determined
> by '#pragma pack' directives is different from the default alignment value.
> - When leaving an included file that changed the state of the current alignment
> value.
>
> rdar://10184173
>
> Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35484
llvm-svn: 308455
and suspicious uses of '#pragma pack' in included files
This commit adds a new -Wpragma-pack warning. It warns in the following cases:
- When a translation unit is missing terminating #pragma pack (pop) directives.
- When entering an included file if the current alignment value as determined
by '#pragma pack' directives is different from the default alignment value.
- When leaving an included file that changed the state of the current alignment
value.
rdar://10184173
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35484
llvm-svn: 308441
of '#pragma pack' in included files
This commit adds a new -Wpragma-pack warning. It warns in the following cases:
- When a translation unit is missing terminating #pragma pack (pop) directives.
- When entering an included file if the current alignment value as determined
by '#pragma pack' directives is different from the default alignment value.
- When leaving an included file that changed the state of the current alignment
value.
rdar://10184173
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35484
llvm-svn: 308327
Given the following test case:
typedef struct {
const char *name;
id field;
} Test9;
extern void doSomething(Test9 arg);
void test9() {
Test9 foo2 = {0, 0};
doSomething(foo2);
}
With a release compiler, we don't emit any message and silently ignore the
variable "foo2". With an assert compiler, we get an assertion failure.
The root cause —————————————
Back in r140457 we gave InitListChecker a verification-only mode, and will use
CanUseDecl instead of DiagnoseUseOfDecl for verification-only mode.
These two functions handle unavailable issues differently:
In Sema::CanUseDecl, we say the decl is invalid when the Decl is unavailable and
the current context is available.
In Sema::DiagnoseUseOfDecl, we say the decl is usable by ignoring the return
code of DiagnoseAvailabilityOfDecl
So with an assert build, we will hit an assertion in diagnoseListInit
assert(DiagnoseInitList.HadError() &&
"Inconsistent init list check result.");
The fix -------------------
If we follow what is implemented in CanUseDecl and treat Decls with
unavailable issues as invalid, the variable decl of “foo2” will be marked as
invalid. Since unavailable checking is processed in delayed diagnostics
(r197627), we will silently ignore the diagnostics when we find out that
the variable decl is invalid.
We add a flag "TreatUnavailableAsInvalid" for the verification-only mode.
For overload resolution, we want to say decls with unavailable issues are
invalid; but for everything else, we should say they are valid and
emit diagnostics. Depending on the value of the flag, CanUseDecl
can return different values for unavailable issues.
rdar://23557300
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15314
llvm-svn: 263149
Language-design credit goes to a lot of people, but I particularly want
to single out Blaine Garst and Patrick Beard for their contributions.
Compiler implementation credit goes to Argyrios, Doug, Fariborz, and myself,
in no particular order.
llvm-svn: 133103
Alex Lorenz