Our self hosting buildbots found a few more tests which weren't updated
to reflect that the enum semantics are part of the Microsoft ABI.
llvm-svn: 249670
Basically, isInMainFile considers line markers, and isWrittenInMainFile
doesn't. Distinguishing between the two is useful when dealing with
files which are preprocessed files or rewritten with -frewrite-includes
(so we don't, for example, print useless warnings).
llvm-svn: 188968
variable in a C99 inline (but not static-inline or extern-inline)
function definition.
The standard doesn't actually say that this doesn't apply to
"extern inline" definitions, but that seems like a useful extension,
and it at least doesn't have the obvious flaw that a static
mutable variable in an externally-available definition does.
rdar://13535367
llvm-svn: 178520
Also, don't warn if the used function is __attribute__((const)), in which case
it's not supposed to use global variables anyway.
The inline-in-inline thing is a heuristic, and one that's possibly incorrect
fairly often because the function being inlined could definitely use global
variables. However, even some C standard library functions are written using
other (trivial) static-inline functions in the headers, and we definitely don't
want to be warning on that (or on anything that /uses/ these trivial inline
functions). So we're using "inlined" as a marker for "fairly trivial".
(Note that __attribute__((pure)) does /not/ guarantee safety like ((const),
because ((const)) does not guarantee that global variables are not being used,
and the warning is about globals not being shared across TUs.)
llvm-svn: 158898
Now that this is a C-only warning, we can use "static" instead of "internal
linkage", which is a term developers are probably more familiar with.
This makes for a better warning message. The warning name was changed to match,
since "internal linkage" is not mentioned in the warning text anymore.
llvm-svn: 158853
Per post-commit review, it's not appropriate to use ExtWarn in C++, because
we can't prove that the inline function will actually be defined in more than
one place (and thus we can't prove that this violates the ODR).
This removes the warning entirely from uses in the main source file in C++.
llvm-svn: 158689
This includes treating anonymous namespaces like internal linkage, and allowing
const variables to be used even if internal. The whole thing's been broken out
into a separate function to avoid nested ifs.
llvm-svn: 158683
This handles the very common case of people writing inline functions in their
main source files and not tagging them as inline. These cases should still
behave as the user intended. (The diagnostic is still emitted as an extension.)
I'm reworking this code anyway to account for C++'s equivalent restriction in
[basic.def.odr]p6, but this should get some bots back to green.
llvm-svn: 158666
This is explicitly forbidden in C99 6.7.4p3. This is /not/ forbidden in C++,
probably because by default file-scope const/constexpr variables have internal
linkage, while functions have external linkage. There's also the issue of
anonymous namespaces to consider. Nevertheless, there should probably be a
similar warning, since the semantics of inlining a function that references
a variable with internal linkage do not seem well-defined.
<rdar://problem/11577619>
llvm-svn: 158531
- 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
Paul Robinson