requirements in protocol/class/category declarations
The unguarded availability warnings in the protocol requirements of a protocol
/class/category declaration can be avoided. This matches the behaviour of
Swift's diagnostics. The warnings for deprecated/unavailable protocols are
preserved.
rdar://33156429
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35061
llvm-svn: 307368
When enable_if disables a particular overload resolution candidate,
rummage through the enable_if condition to find the specific condition
that caused the failure. For example, if we have something like:
template<
typename Iter,
typename = std::enable_if_t<Random_access_iterator<Iter> &&
Comparable<Iterator_value_type<Iter>>>>
void mysort(Iter first, Iter last) {}
and we call "mysort" with "std::list<int>" iterators, we'll get a
diagnostic saying that the "Random_access_iterator<Iter>" requirement
failed. If we call "mysort" with
"std::vector<something_not_comparable>", we'll get a diagnostic saying
that the "Comparable<...>" requirement failed.
llvm-svn: 307196
These cases occur frequently for declarations in the global module (above the
module-declaration) in a Modules TS module interface. When we merge a
definition from another module into such a module-private definition, ensure
that we transitively make everything lexically within that definition visible
to that translation unit.
llvm-svn: 307129
Summary:
This way, the behavior of that warning flag
more closely resembles that of GCC.
Do note that there is at least one false-negative (see FIXME in tests).
Fixes PR4802.
Testing:
```
ninja check-clang-sema check-clang-semacxx
```
Reviewers: dblaikie, majnemer, rnk
Reviewed By: dblaikie, rnk
Subscribers: mclow.lists, cfe-commits, alexfh, rnk
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33102
llvm-svn: 307045
In C mode clang fails to merge the textually included definition with the one imported from a module. The C lookup rules fail to find the imported definition because its linkage is internal in non C++ mode.
This patch reinstates some of the ODR merging rules for typedefs of anonymous tags for languages other than C++.
Patch by Raphael Isemann and me (D34510).
llvm-svn: 306964
Combined directives like 'target parallel' have two captured statements.
Sema has to check the right one from the right direction.
Previously, Sema::IsOpenMPCapturedByRef would return false for mapped
scalars on combined directives. This results in a wrong signature of
the outlined function which triggers an assertion:
void llvm::CallInst::init(llvm::FunctionType *, llvm::Value *, ArrayRef<llvm::Value *>, ArrayRef<OperandBundleDef>, const llvm::Twine &): Assertion `(i >= FTy->getNumParams() || FTy->getParamType(i) == Args[i]->getType()) && "Calling a function with a bad signature!"' failed.
Fixes PR30975 (and PR31985). New function was taken from clang-ykt.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34888
llvm-svn: 306956
Allow ODR for ObjC/C in the sense that we won't keep more that
one definition around (merge them). However, ensure the decl
pass the structural compatibility check in C11 6.2.7/1, for that,
reuse the structural equivalence checks used by the ASTImporter.
Few other considerations:
- Create error diagnostics for tag types mismatches and thread
them into the structural equivalence checks.
- Note that by doing this we only support redefinition between types
that are considered "compatible types" by C.
This is mixed approach of the suggestions discussed in
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2017-March/053257.html
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31778
rdar://problem/31909368
llvm-svn: 306918
a c++17 aligned allocation/deallocation function that is unavailable in
the standard library on Apple platforms.
The aligned functions are implemented only in the following versions or
later versions of the OSes, so clang issues diagnostics if the deployment
target being targeted is older than these:
macosx: 10.13
ios: 11.0
tvos: 11.0
watchos: 4.0
The diagnostics are issued whenever the aligned functions are selected
except when the selected function has a definition in the same file.
If there is a user-defined function available somewhere else, option
-Wno-aligned-allocation-unavailable can be used to silence the
diagnostics.
rdar://problem/32664169
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34574
llvm-svn: 306722
...as introduced with recent <https://reviews.llvm.org/D33333> "Emit warning
when throw exception in destruct or dealloc functions which has a (possible
implicit) noexcept specifier". (The equivalent of the goodReference case hit
when building LibreOffice.)
(These warnings are apparently only emitted when no errors have yet been
encountered, so it didn't work to add the test code to the end of the existing
clang/test/SemaCXX/exceptions.cpp.)
llvm-svn: 306715
Summary:
does it make sense to enable K&R function declaration style for OpenCL?
clang throws following error message for the declaration w/o arguments:
```
int my_func();
error: function with no prototype cannot use the spir_function calling convention
```
Current way to fix this issue is to specify that parameter list is empty by using 'void':
```
int my_func(void);
```
Let me know what do you think about this patch.
Reviewers: Anastasia, yaxunl
Reviewed By: Anastasia
Subscribers: cfe-commits, echuraev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33681
llvm-svn: 306653
Fix crash in clang when an array of unknown bounds of an incomplete type is passed to __has_trivial_destructor.
Patch by Puneetha
https://reviews.llvm.org/D34198
llvm-svn: 306519
This patch extends the `overloadable` attribute to allow for one
function with a given name to not be marked with the `overloadable`
attribute. The overload without the `overloadable` attribute will not
have its name mangled.
So, the following code is now legal:
void foo(void) __attribute__((overloadable));
void foo(int);
void foo(float) __attribute__((overloadable));
In addition, this patch fixes a bug where we'd accept code with
`__attribute__((overloadable))` inconsistently applied. In other words,
we used to accept:
void foo(void);
void foo(void) __attribute__((overloadable));
But we will do this no longer, since it defeats the original purpose of
requiring `__attribute__((overloadable))` on all redeclarations of a
function.
This breakage seems to not be an issue in practice, since the only code
I could find that had this pattern often looked like:
void foo(void);
void foo(void) __attribute__((overloadable)) __asm__("foo");
void foo(int) __attribute__((overloadable));
...Which can now be simplified by simply removing the asm label and
overloadable attribute from the redeclaration of `void foo(void);`
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32332
llvm-svn: 306467
dependent initializer
This commit fixes incorrect source positions of dependent c'tor initializers
like in the following code:
template<typename MyBase>
struct Derived: MyBase::InnerIterator
{
Derived() : MyBase::InnerIterator() {} /// This line is problematic: all positions point to InnerIterator and nothing points to MyBase
};
Patch by Serge Preis!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32439
llvm-svn: 306392
Also add testcases for a bunch of expression forms that cause our evaluator to
crash. See PR33140 and PR32864 for crashes that this was causing.
This reverts r305287, which reverted r305239, which reverted r301742. The
previous revert claimed that buildbots were broken, but did not add any
testcases and the buildbots have lost all memory of what was wrong here.
Changes to test/OpenMP are not reverted; another change has triggered those
tests to change their output in the same way that r301742 did.
llvm-svn: 306346
definition or non-reference class type.
The crash occurs when there is a template parameter list in a class that
is missing the closing angle bracket followed by a definition of a
struct. For example:
class C0 {
public:
template<typename T, typename T1 = T // missing closing angle bracket
struct S0 {};
C0() : m(new S0<int>) {}
S0<int> *m;
};
This happens because the parsed struct is added to the scope of the
enclosing class without having its access specifier set, which results
in an assertion failure in SemaAccess.cpp later.
This commit fixes the crash by adding the parsed struct to the enclosing
file scope and marking structs as invalid if they are defined in
template parameter lists.
rdar://problem/31783961
rdar://problem/19570630
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33606
llvm-svn: 306317
(possible implicit) noexcept specifier
Throwing in the destructor is not good (C++11 change try to not allow see below).
But in reality, those codes are exist.
C++11 [class.dtor]p3:
A declaration of a destructor that does not have an exception-specification is
implicitly considered to have the same exception specification as an implicit
declaration.
With this change, the application worked before may now run into runtime
termination. My goal here is to emit a warning to provide only possible info to
where the code may need to be changed.
First there is no way, in compile time to identify the “throw” really throw out
of the function. Things like the call which throw out… To keep this simple,
when “throw” is seen, checking its enclosing function(only destructor and
dealloc functions) with noexcept(true) specifier emit warning.
Here is implementation detail:
A new member function CheckCXXThrowInNonThrowingFunc is added for class Sema
in Sema.h. It is used in the call to both BuildCXXThrow and
TransformCXXThrowExpr.
The function basic check if the enclosing function with non-throwing noexcept
specifer, if so emit warning for it.
The example of warning message like:
k1.cpp:18:3: warning: ''~dependent_warn'' has a (possible implicit) non-throwing
noexcept specifier. Throwing exception may cause termination.
[-Wthrow-in-dtor]
throw 1;
^
k1.cpp:43:30: note: in instantiation of member function
'dependent_warn<noexcept_fun>::~dependent_warn' requested here
dependent_warn<noexcept_fun> f; // cause warning
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33333
llvm-svn: 306149
This commit fixes incorrect source positions of dependent c'tor initializers
like in the following code:
template<typename MyBase>
struct Derived: MyBase::InnerIterator
{
Derived() : MyBase::InnerIterator() {} /// This line is problematic: all positions point to InnerIterator and nothing points to MyBase
};
Patch by Serge Preis!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32439
llvm-svn: 306103
declarations that are owned but unconditionally visible.
This allows us to set declarations as visible even if they have a local owning
module, without losing information. In turn, that means that our Objective-C
support can keep on incorrectly assuming the "hidden" bit on the declaration is
the whole story with regard to name visibility. This will also be useful once
we support the C++ Modules TS export semantics.
Objective-C name visibility is still incorrect in any case where the "hidden"
bit is not the complete story: for instance, in Objective-C++ the set of
visible categories will be wrong during template instantiation, and with local
submodule visibility enabled it will be wrong when building modules. Fixing that
will require a major overhaul of how visibility is handled for Objective-C (and
particularly for categories).
llvm-svn: 306075
The new compiler warning -Wunguarded-availability-new is a subset of
-Wunguarded-availability. It is on by default. It only warns about uses of APIs
that have been introduced in macOS >= 10.13, iOS >= 11, watchOS >= 4 and
tvOS >= 11. We decided to use this kind of solution as we didn't want to turn
on -Wunguarded-availability by default, because we didn't want our users to get
warnings about uses of old APIs in their existing projects.
rdar://31054725
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34264
llvm-svn: 306033
While a function body is being parsed, the function declaration is not considered
as a definition because it does not have a body yet. In some cases it leads to
incorrect interpretation, the case is presented in
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14785:
```
template<typename T> struct Somewhat {
void internal() const {}
friend void operator+(int const &, Somewhat<T> const &) {}
};
void operator+(int const &, Somewhat<char> const &x) { x.internal(); }
```
When statement `x.internal()` in the body of global `operator+` is parsed, the type
of `x` must be completed, so the instantiation of `Somewhat<char>` is started. It
instantiates the declaration of `operator+` defined inline, and makes a check for
redefinition. The check does not detect another definition because the declaration
of `operator+` is still not defining as does not have a body yet.
To solves this problem the function `isThisDeclarationADefinition` considers
a function declaration as a definition if it has flag `WillHaveBody` set.
This change fixes PR14785.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30375
This is a recommit of 305379, reverted in 305381, with small changes.
llvm-svn: 305903
As the bug report says,
struct A
{
template<typename T> operator T();
};
void foo()
{
A().operator auto();
}
causes: "undeduced type in IR-generation
UNREACHABLE executed at llvm/tools/clang/lib/CodeGen/CodeGenFunction.cpp:208!"
The problem is that in this case, "T" is being deduced as "auto",
which I believe is incorrect.
The 'operator auto' implementation in Clang is standards compliant, however
there is a defect report against core (1670).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34370
llvm-svn: 305812
Produce an error if variables qualified with a local or
a constant address space are not declared in the outermost
scope of a kernel.
Patch by Simon Perretta.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34024
llvm-svn: 305798
Summary:
Before this change, we couldn't capture the `this` pointer that's
implicitly the first argument of class member functions. There are some
interesting things we can do with capturing even just this single
argument for zero-argument member functions.
Reviewers: rnk, pelikan
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34052
llvm-svn: 305544
This commit is a follow up to r302797 which added support for dependent
completions after the '.' and '->' operators. This commit adds support for
dependent completions after the '::' operator.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34173
llvm-svn: 305511
While a function body is being parsed, the function declaration is not considered
as a definition because it does not have a body yet. In some cases it leads to
incorrect interpretation, the case is presented in
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14785:
```
template<typename T> struct Somewhat {
void internal() const {}
friend void operator+(int const &, Somewhat<T> const &) {}
};
void operator+(int const &, Somewhat<char> const &x) { x.internal(); }
```
When statement `x.internal()` in the body of global `operator+` is parsed, the type
of `x` must be completed, so the instantiation of `Somewhat<char>` is started. It
instantiates the declaration of `operator+` defined inline, and makes a check for
redefinition. The check does not detect another definition because the declaration
of `operator+` is still not defining as does not have a body yet.
To solves this problem the function `isThisDeclarationADefinition` considers
a function declaration as a definition if it has flag `WillHaveBody` set.
This change fixes PR14785.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30375
llvm-svn: 305379
Summary:
Currently we build the co_await expressions on the wrong implicit statements of the implicit ranged for; Specifically we build the co_await expression wrapping the range declaration, but it should wrap the begin expression.
This patch fixes co_await on range for.
Reviewers: rsmith, GorNishanov
Reviewed By: GorNishanov
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34021
llvm-svn: 305363
Olivier Goffart