Fix all the files that depended on transitive includes of Diagnostic.h.
With this patch in place changing a diagnostic no longer requires a full rebuild of the StaticAnalyzer.
llvm-svn: 149781
Let ASTContext allocate the storage in its BumpPtrAllocator.
This will help us remove ASTContext's depedency on PartialDiagnostic.h soon.
llvm-svn: 149780
The recent support for potential constant expressions exposed a bug in the
implementation of libstdc++4.6, where numeric_limits<int>::min() is defined
as (int)1 << 31, which isn't a constant expression. Disable the 'constexpr
function never produces a constant expression' error inside system headers
to compensate.
llvm-svn: 149729
template without a corresponding parameter pack, don't immediately
substitute the alias template. This is under discussion in the C++
committee, and may become ill-formed, but for now we match GCC.
llvm-svn: 149697
* support the gcc __builtin_constant_p() ? ... : ... folding hack in C++11
* check for unspecified values in pointer comparisons and pointer subtractions
llvm-svn: 149578
argument in strncat.
The warning is ignored by default since it needs more qualification.
TODO: The warning message and the note are messy when
strncat is a builtin due to the macro expansion.
llvm-svn: 149524
This is a mess. According to the C++11 standard, pointer subtraction only has
undefined behavior if the difference of the array indices does not fit into a
ptrdiff_t.
However, common implementations effectively perform a char* subtraction first,
and then divide the result by the element size, which can cause overflows in
some cases. Those cases are not considered to be undefined behavior by this
change; perhaps they should be.
llvm-svn: 149490
mangling of floating-point literals. I just went ahead and
reimplemented toString() here; if someone wants to generalize
the library routine to do this, or feels strongly that we should
be post-processing, please feel free.
llvm-svn: 149256
function definition can produce a constant expression. This also provides the
last few checks for [dcl.constexpr]p3 and [dcl.constexpr]p4.
llvm-svn: 149108
provide the layout of records, rather than letting Clang compute
the layout itself. LLDB provides the motivation for this feature:
because various layout-altering attributes (packed, aligned, etc.)
don't get reliably get placed into DWARF, the record layouts computed
by LLDB from the reconstructed records differ from the actual layouts,
and badness occurs. This interface lets the DWARF data drive layout,
so we don't need the attributes preserved to get the answer write.
The testing methodology for this change is fun. I've introduced a
variant of -fdump-record-layouts called -fdump-record-layouts-simple
that always has the simple C format and provides size/alignment/field
offsets. There is also a -cc1 option -foverride-record-layout=<file>
to take the output of -fdump-record-layouts-simple and parse it to
produce a set of overridden layouts, which is introduced into the AST
via a testing-only ExternalASTSource (called
LayoutOverrideSource). Each test contains a number of records to lay
out, which use various layout-changing attributes, and then dumps the
layouts. We then run the test again, using the preprocessor to
eliminate the layout-changing attributes entirely (which would give us
different layouts for the records), but supplying the
previously-computed record layouts. Finally, we diff the layouts
produced from the two runs to be sure that they are identical.
Note that this code makes the assumption that we don't *have* to
provide the offsets of bases or virtual bases to get the layout right,
because the alignment attributes don't affect it. I believe this
assumption holds, but if it does not, we can extend
LayoutOverrideSource to also provide base offset information.
Fixes the Clang side of <rdar://problem/10169539>.
llvm-svn: 149055
iff its substitution contains an unexpanded parameter pack. This has the effect
that we now reject declarations such as this (which we used to crash when
expanding):
template<typename T> using Int = int;
template<typename ...Ts> void f(Int<Ts> ...ints);
The standard is inconsistent on how this case should be treated.
llvm-svn: 148905
Abramo Bagnara