1. Make the warning more strict in C mode. r172696 added code to suppress
warnings from macro expansions in system headers, which checks
`SourceMgr.isMacroBodyExpansion(E->IgnoreParens()->getExprLoc())`. Consider
this snippet:
#define FOO(x) (x)
void f(int a) {
FOO(a);
}
In C, the line `FOO(a)` is an `ImplicitCastExpr(ParenExpr(DeclRefExpr))`,
while it's just a `ParenExpr(DeclRefExpr)` in C++. So in C++,
`E->IgnoreParens()` returns the `DeclRefExpr` and the check tests the
SourceLoc of `a`. In C, the `ImplicitCastExpr` has the effect of checking the
SourceLoc of `FOO`, which is a macro body expansion, which causes the
diagnostic to be skipped. It looks unintentional that clang does different
things for C and C++ here, so use `IgnoreParenImpCasts` instead of
`IgnoreParens` here. This has the effect of the warning firing more often
than previously in C code – it now fires as often as it fires in C++ code.
2. Suppress the warning if it would warn on `UNREFERENCED_PARAMETER`.
`UNREFERENCED_PARAMETER` is a commonly used macro on Windows and it happens
to uselessly trigger -Wunused-value. As discussed in the thread
"rfc: winnt.h's UNREFERENCED_PARAMETER() vs clang's -Wunused-value" on
cfe-dev, fix this by special-casing this specific macro. (This costs a string
comparison and some fast-path lexing per warning, but the warning is emitted
rarely. It fires once in Windows.h itself, so this code runs at least once
per TU including Windows.h, but it doesn't run hundreds of times.)
http://reviews.llvm.org/D13969
llvm-svn: 251441
This is inspired by a number of false positives in real code, including
PR14968. I've added test cases reduced from these false positives to
test/Sema/unused-expr.c, as well as corresponding test cases that pass the
offending expressions as arguments to a no-op macro to ensure that we do warn
there.
This also removes my previous tweak from r166522/r166534, so that we warn on
unused cast expressions in macro arguments.
There were several test cases that were using -Wunused-value to test general
diagnostic emission features; I changed those to use other warnings or warn on
a macro argument expression. I stared at the test case for PR14399 for a while
with Richard Smith and we believe the new test case exercises the same
codepaths as before.
llvm-svn: 172696
-Wunused was a mistake. It resulted in duplicate warnings and lots of
other hacks. Instead, this should be a special sub-category to
-Wunused-value, much like -Wunused-result is.
Moved to -Wunused-comparison, moved the implementation to piggy back on
the -Wunused-value implementation instead of rolling its own, different
mechanism for catching all of the "interesting" statements.
I like the unused-value mechanism for this better, but its currently
missing several top-level statements. For now, I've FIXME-ed out those
test cases. I'll enhance the generic infrastructure to catch these
statements in a subsequent patch.
This patch also removes the cast-to-void fixit hint. This hint isn't
available on any of the other -Wunused-value diagnostics, and if we want
it to be, we should add it generically rather than in one specific case.
llvm-svn: 137822
- This is designed to make it obvious that %clang_cc1 is a "test variable"
which is substituted. It is '%clang_cc1' instead of '%clang -cc1' because it
can be useful to redefine what gets run as 'clang -cc1' (for example, to set
a default target).
llvm-svn: 91446
clang.
- We will eventually want some more driver infrastructre for this
probably.
- For now, the clang-cc interface stays relatively the same, but we
don't accept multiple instances anymore, or the [no-] variants
directly.
llvm-svn: 68550
using "-parse-ast -verify".
Updated all test cases (using a sed script) that invoked -parse-ast-check to
now use -parse-ast -verify.
Fixed a bug where using "-verify" instead of "-parse-ast-check" would not
correctly create the DiagClient needed to accumulate diagnostics.
llvm-svn: 42365
warn about the last stmt in a stmtexpr, f.e. there should be no warning for:
int maxval_stmt_expr(int x, int y) {
return ({int _a = x, _b = y; _a > _b ? _a : _b; });
}
llvm-svn: 41655
Modified Type::typesAreCompatible() to use the above.
This fixes the following bug submitted by Keith Bauer (thanks!).
int equal(char *a, const char *b)
{
return a == b;
}
Also tweaked Sema::CheckCompareOperands() to ignore the qualifiers when
comparing two pointer types (though it doesn't relate directly to this bug).
llvm-svn: 41476
Aaron Ballman