Old GCC used to aggressively fold VLAs to constant-bound arrays at block
scope in GNU mode. That's non-conforming, and more modern versions of
GCC only do this at file scope. Update Clang to do the same.
Also promote the warning for this from off-by-default to on-by-default
in all cases; more recent versions of GCC likewise warn on this by
default.
This is still slightly more permissive than GCC, as pointed out in
PR44406, as we still fold VLAs to constant arrays in structs, but that
seems justifiable given that we don't support VLA-in-struct (and don't
intend to ever support it), but GCC does.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89523
Supersedes D80225. Add --ld-path= to avoid strange target specific
prefixes and make -fuse-ld= focus on its intended job: "linker flavor".
(-f* affects generated code or language features. --ld-path does not
affect codegen, so it is not named -f*)
The way --ld-path= works is similar to "Command Search and Execution" in POSIX.1-2017 2.9.1 Simple Commands.
If --ld-path= specifies
* an absolute path, the value specifies the linker.
* a relative path without a path component separator (/), the value is searched using the -B, COMPILER_PATH, then PATH.
* a relative path with a path component separator, the linker is found relative to the current working directory.
-fuse-ld= and --ld-path= can be composed, e.g. `-fuse-ld=lld --ld-path=/usr/bin/ld.lld`
The driver can base its linker option decision on the flavor -fuse-ld=, but it should not do fragile
flavor checking with --ld-path=.
Reviewed By: whitequark, keith
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83015
I have a follow-on patch that uses an alternative wording for
ext_excess_initializers in some cases. This patch puts it and
a couple of related warnings under their own -W option in order
to avoid a regression in Misc/warning-flags.c.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79244
While building openJDK11u, it seems that some of the code in the
native core libraries make liberal use of integer to pointer
comparisons. We currently have no flag to disabled this warning.
This add such a flag.
Patch by Kader (abdoul-kader keita)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56241
llvm-svn: 351082
The C standard doesn't allow comparisons like "f1 < f2" (where f1 and f2
are function pointers), but we allow them as an extension. Add a
warning flag to control this warning.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46155
llvm-svn: 331570
Found via codespell -q 3 -I ../clang-whitelist.txt
Where whitelist consists of:
archtype
cas
classs
checkk
compres
definit
frome
iff
inteval
ith
lod
methode
nd
optin
ot
pres
statics
te
thru
Patch by luzpaz! (This is a subset of D44188 that applies cleanly with a few
files that have dubious fixes reverted.)
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44188
llvm-svn: 329399
We were injecting the function into the wrong semantic context, resulting in it
failing to be registered as a global for redeclaration lookup. As a
consequence, we accepted invalid code since r310616.
Fixing that resulted in the "out-of-scope declaration" diagnostic firing a lot
more often. It turned out that warning codepath was non-conforming, because it
did not cause us to inject the implicitly-declared function into the enclosing
block scope. We now only warn if the type of the out-of-scope declaration
doesn't match the type of an implicitly-declared function; in all other cases,
we produce the normal warning for an implicitly-declared function.
llvm-svn: 314871
As a first step toward removing Objective-C garbage collection from
Clang, remove support from the driver. I'm hoping this will flush out
any expected bots/configurations/whatever that might rely on it.
I've left the options behind temporarily in -cc1 to keep tests passing.
I'll kill them off entirely in a follow up when I've had a chance to
update/delete the rest of Clang.
llvm-svn: 288872
Expose a warning flag for warn_duplicate_protocol_def. This allows control
over the severity of duplicate protocol definitions.
For example -Werror=duplicate-protocol or
#pragma clang diagnostic ignored "-Wduplicate-protocol".
Patch provided by Dave Lee!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26406
llvm-svn: 286487
This has two significant effects:
1) Direct relational comparisons between null pointer constants (0 and nullopt)
and pointers are now ill-formed. This was always the case for C, and it
appears that C++ only ever permitted by accident. For instance, cases like
nullptr < &a
are now rejected.
2) Comparisons and conditional operators between differently-cv-qualified
pointer types now work, and produce a composite type that both source
pointer types can convert to (when possible). For instance, comparison
between 'int **' and 'const int **' is now valid, and uses an intermediate
type of 'const int *const *'.
Clang previously supported #2 as an extension.
We do not accept the cases in #1 as an extension. I've tested a fair amount of
code to check that this doesn't break it, but if it turns out that someone is
relying on this, we can easily add it back as an extension.
This is a re-commit of r284800.
llvm-svn: 284890
This has two significant effects:
1) Direct relational comparisons between null pointer constants (0 and nullopt)
and pointers are now ill-formed. This was always the case for C, and it
appears that C++ only ever permitted by accident. For instance, cases like
nullptr < &a
are now rejected.
2) Comparisons and conditional operators between differently-cv-qualified
pointer types now work, and produce a composite type that both source
pointer types can convert to (when possible). For instance, comparison
between 'int **' and 'const int **' is now valid, and uses an intermediate
type of 'const int *const *'.
Clang previously supported #2 as an extension.
We do not accept the cases in #1 as an extension. I've tested a fair amount of
code to check that this doesn't break it, but if it turns out that someone is
relying on this, we can easily add it back as an extension.
llvm-svn: 284800
This option behaves in a similar spirit as -save-temps and writes
internal llvm statistics in json format to a file.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24820
llvm-svn: 282426
specification) to an error. No compiler other than Clang seems to allow this,
and it doesn't seem like a useful thing to accept as an extension in general.
The current behavior was added for PR5957, where the problem was specifically
related to mismatches of the exception specification on the implicitly-declared
global operator new and delete. To retain that workaround, we downgrade the
error to an ExtWarn when the declaration is of a replaceable global allocation
function.
Now that this is an error, stop trying (and failing) to recover from a missing
computed noexcept specification. That recovery didn't work, and led to crashes
in code like the added testcase.
llvm-svn: 248867
If we build with -Werror=implicit-function-declaration, only implicit
function declarations of non-library functions throw compiler errors.
For library functions, we only produce a warning. There is no way to
promote both of these cases to an error without promoting other
warnings.
It makes little sense to introduce an additional compiler flag just to
control this specific warning. In my opinion it should just be part of
the same group.
llvm-svn: 246857
based on whether "redundant" braces are ever reasonable as part of the
initialization of the entity, rather than whether the initialization is
"top-level". In passing, add a warning flag for it.
llvm-svn: 228896
ExtWarn/Warnings. Mostly the name of the warning was changed to match the
semantics, but in the PR20356 cases, the warning was about valid code, so the
diagnostic was changed from ExtWarn to Warning instead.
llvm-svn: 213443
CL permits static redeclarations to follow extern declarations. The
storage specifier on the latter declaration has no effect.
This fixes PR20034.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D4149
llvm-svn: 211238
This is consistent with -Wbuiltin-macro-redefined, and puts this common
extension warning under a flag.
Reviewers: rsmith
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D3283
llvm-svn: 205591
(for an integer too large for any signed type) from Warning to ExtWarn -- it's
ill-formed in C++11 and C99 onwards, and UB during translation in C89 and
C++98. Add diagnostic groups for two relevant diagnostics.
llvm-svn: 203974
This starts to switch ARCMT to use proper diagnostic messages. The old use was
based on incorrect example code from the documentation.
The logic of the previous report() functions has been retained to support any
external consumers that might be intercepting diagnostic messages through the
old interface.
Note that the change in test/Misc/warning-flags.c isn't a new warning without a
flag, rather one that was previously invisible to the test. Adding a flag might
be a good idea though.
llvm-svn: 200124
Since this warning was generalized, it was also given a sensible warning group flag and the corresponding test was updated to reflect this.
llvm-svn: 198053
Richard Smith