Commit Graph

10 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Nico Weber 2a03f270d6 clang: Add test for -Wunreachable-code + weak redeclaration
This tests what caused the revert in 7b033238.
2020-09-04 10:35:50 -04:00
Sam McCall 24f135733d Revert "[Analysis] -Wunreachable-code shouldn't fire on the increment of a foreach loop"
This reverts commit r354102.

llvm-svn: 354109
2019-02-15 09:18:49 +00:00
Sam McCall ce2b40def1 [Analysis] -Wunreachable-code shouldn't fire on the increment of a foreach loop
Summary:
The idea is that the code here isn't written, so doesn't indicate a bug.
Similar to code expanded from macros.

This means the warning no longer fires on this code:
  for (auto C : collection) {
    process(C);
    return;
  }
  handleEmptyCollection();
Unclear whether this is more often a bug or not in practice, I think it's a
reasonable idiom in some cases.
Either way, if we want to warn on "loop that doesn't loop", I think it should be
a separate warning, and catch `while(1) break;`

Reviewers: ilya-biryukov, ioeric

Subscribers: cfe-commits

Tags: #clang

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58134

llvm-svn: 354102
2019-02-15 07:16:11 +00:00
Ted Kremenek 1421037ece [-Wunreachable-code] add a specialized diagnostic for unreachable increment expressions of loops.
llvm-svn: 204430
2014-03-21 06:02:36 +00:00
Ted Kremenek 1a8641c1e7 Start breaking -Wunreachable-code up into different diagnostic groups.
Recent work on -Wunreachable-code has focused on suppressing uninteresting
unreachable code that center around "configuration values", but
there are still some set of cases that are sometimes interesting
or uninteresting depending on the codebase.  For example, a dead
"break" statement may not be interesting for a particular codebase,
potentially because it is auto-generated or simply because code
is written defensively.

To address these workflow differences, -Wunreachable-code is now
broken into several diagnostic groups:

-Wunreachable-code: intended to be a reasonable "default" for
most users.

and then other groups that turn on more aggressive checking:

-Wunreachable-code-break: warn about dead break statements

-Wunreachable-code-trivial-return: warn about dead return statements
that return "trivial" values (e.g., return 0).  Other return
statements that return non-trivial values are still reported
under -Wunreachable-code (this is an area subject to more refinement).

-Wunreachable-code-aggressive: supergroup that enables all these
groups.

The goal is to eventually make -Wunreachable-code good enough to
either be in -Wall or on-by-default, thus finessing these warnings
into different groups helps achieve maximum signal for more users.

TODO: the tests need to be updated to reflect this extra control
via diagnostic flags.

llvm-svn: 203994
2014-03-15 01:26:32 +00:00
Ted Kremenek 7549f0f9bf [-Wunreachable-code] Handle idiomatic do...while() with an uninteresting condition.
Sometimes do..while() is used to create a scope that can be left early.
In such cases, the unreachable 'while()' test is not usually interesting
unless it actually does something that is observable.

llvm-svn: 203051
2014-03-06 01:09:45 +00:00
Anders Carlsson 6774b1f1c1 Add -fcxx-exceptions to all tests that use C++ exceptions.
llvm-svn: 126599
2011-02-28 00:40:07 +00:00
Anders Carlsson 479d6f51e3 Pass -fexceptions to all tests that use try/catch/throw.
llvm-svn: 126037
2011-02-19 19:23:03 +00:00
Ted Kremenek 82bfc86792 Explicitly handle CXXExprWithTemporaries during CFG construction by just visiting the subexpression. While we don't do anything intelligent right now, this obviates a bogus -Wunreahable-code warning reported in PR 6130.
llvm-svn: 112334
2010-08-28 00:19:02 +00:00
Mike Stump 1bacb81d6f Add an unreachable code checker.
llvm-svn: 93287
2010-01-13 02:59:54 +00:00