rewriting the literal when the value is integral. It is not uncommon to
see code written as:
const int kBigNumber = 42e5;
Without any real awareness that this is no longer an ICE. The note helps
automate and ease the process of fixing code that violates the warning.
llvm-svn: 129243
type rather than just the literal 'false'. This begins fixing PR9612,
but the message is now wrong. WIP, the cleanup of the messaging is next.
llvm-svn: 129204
This patch authored by Eric Niebler.
Many methods on the Sema class (e.g. ConvertPropertyForRValue) take Expr
pointers as in/out parameters (Expr *&). This is especially true for the
routines that apply implicit conversions to nodes in-place. This design is
workable only as long as those conversions cannot fail. If they are allowed
to fail, they need a way to report their failures. The typical way of doing
this in clang is to use an ExprResult, which has an extra bit to signal a
valid/invalid state. Returning ExprResult is de riguour elsewhere in the Sema
interface. We suggest changing the Expr *& parameters in the Sema interface
to ExprResult &. This increases interface consistency and maintainability.
This interface change is important for work supporting MS-style C++
properties. For reasons explained here
<http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-dev/2011-February/013180.html>,
seemingly trivial operations like rvalue/lvalue conversions that formerly
could not fail now can. (The reason is that given the semantics of the
feature, getter/setter method lookup cannot happen until the point of use, at
which point it may be found that the method does not exist, or it may have the
wrong type, or overload resolution may fail, or it may be inaccessible.)
llvm-svn: 129143
The idea is that you can create a VarDecl with an unknown type, or a
FunctionDecl with an unknown return type, and it will still be valid to
access that object as long as you explicitly cast it at every use. I'm
still going back and forth about how I want to test this effectively, but
I wanted to go ahead and provide a skeletal implementation for the LLDB
folks' benefit and because it also improves some diagnostic goodness for
placeholder expressions.
llvm-svn: 129065
extracts a function to handle the emission of the diagnostic separately
from the walking over the set of uninitialized uses.
Also updates the naming used within this extracted function to be a bit
more consistent with the rest of Clang's naming patterns.
The next step will be breaking this apart so that we can go through
different functions rather than tracking so many boolean variables.
llvm-svn: 128898
int x = x;
GCC disables its warnings on this construct as a way of indicating that
the programmer intentionally wants the variable to be uninitialized.
Only the warning on the initializer is turned off in this iteration.
This makes the code a lot more ugly, but starts commenting the
surprising behavior here. This is a WIP, I want to refactor it
substantially for clarity, and to determine whether subsequent warnings
should be suppressed or not.
llvm-svn: 128894
I think this moves the code in the desired direction of the new style
recommendations (and style conventional in Clang), but if anyone prefers
the previous style, or has other suggestions just chime in and I'll
follow up.
llvm-svn: 128878
1) Change the CFG to include the DeclStmt for conditional variables, instead of using the condition itself as a faux DeclStmt.
2) Update ExprEngine (the static analyzer) to understand (1), so not to regress.
3) Update UninitializedValues.cpp to initialize all tracked variables to Uninitialized at the start of the function/method.
4) Only use the SelfReferenceChecker (SemaDecl.cpp) on global variables, leaving the dataflow analysis to handle other cases.
The combination of (1) and (3) allows the dataflow-based -Wuninitialized to find self-init problems when the initializer
contained control-flow.
llvm-svn: 128858
location into a TemplateSpecializationTypeLoc. These were found using
a hand-written program to inspect every source location in
TemplateSpecializationTypeLocs and Valgrind. I don't know of any way to
test them in Clang's existing test suite sadly.
Example code that triggers the ElaboratedType case:
template <typename T> struct X1 {
template <typename U> struct X1_1 {
int x;
};
};
template <typename T, typename U> struct X2 {
typename X1<T>::template X1_1<U> B;
};
X2<char, int> x2;
The other fix was simply spotted by inspection. I audited all constructions of
[Dependent]TemplateSpecializationTypeLocs in TreeTransform.h, and the rest set
the TemplateNameLoc properly.
llvm-svn: 128702
when the resolution took place due to a single template specialization
being named with an explicit template argument list. In this case, the
"resolution" doesn't take into account the target type at all, and
therefore can take place for functions, static member functions, and
*non-static* member functions. The latter weren't being properly checked
and their proper form enforced in this scenario. We now do so.
The result of this last form slipping through was some confusing logic
in IsStandardConversion handling of these resolved address-of
expressions which eventually exploded in an assert. Simplify this logic
a bit and add some more aggressive asserts to catch improperly formed
expressions getting into this routine.
Finally add systematic testing of member functions, both static and
non-static, in the various forms they can take. One of these is
essentially PR9563, and this commit fixes the crash in that PR. However,
the diagnostics for this are still pretty terrible. We at least are now
accepting the correct constructs and rejecting the invalid ones rather
than accepting invalid or crashing as before.
llvm-svn: 128456
This is basically the same idea as the warning on uninitialized uses of
fields within an initializer list. As such, it is on by default and
under -Wuninitialized.
Original patch by Richard Trieu, with some massaging from me on the
wording and grouping of the diagnostics.
llvm-svn: 128376
platform implies default visibility. To achieve these, refactor our
lookup of explicit visibility so that we search for both an explicit
VisibilityAttr and an appropriate AvailabilityAttr, favoring the
VisibilityAttr if it is present.
llvm-svn: 128336
Chandler Carruth