Rewording the diagnostic to be more precise/correct: "default label in switch
which covers all enumeration values" and changed the switch to
-Wcovered-switch-default
llvm-svn: 148783
Changing wording to include the word "explicitly" (as in "enumeration value ...
not /explicitly/ handled by switch"), as suggested by Richard Smith.
Also, now that the diagnostic text differs between -Wswitch and -Wswitch-enum,
I've simplified the test cases a bit.
llvm-svn: 148781
This is for consistency, since the flag is actually under -Wswitch now, rather
than -Wswitch-enum (since it's really valuable for the former and rather
orthogonal to the latter)
llvm-svn: 148680
Clang previously implemented -Wswitch-enum the same as -Wswitch. This patch
corrects the behavior to match GCC's. The critical/only difference being that
-Wswitch-enum is not silenced by the presence of a default case in the switch.
llvm-svn: 148679
For consistency with GCC & reasonable sanity. The FIXME suggests that the
original author was perhaps using the default check for some other purpose,
not realizing the more obvious limitation/false-negatives it creates, but this
doesn't seem to produce any regressions & fixes the included test.
llvm-svn: 148649
This warning acts as the complement to the main -Wswitch-enum warning (which
warns whenever a switch over enum without a default doesn't cover all values of
the enum) & has been an an-doc coding convention in LLVM and Clang in my
experience. The purpose is to ensure there's never a "dead" default in a
switch-over-enum because this would hide future -Wswitch-enum errors.
The name warning has a separate flag name so it can be disabled but it's grouped
under -Wswitch-enum & is on-by-default because of this.
The existing violations of this rule in test cases have had the warning disabled
& I've added a specific test for the new behavior (many negative cases already
exist in the same test file - and none regressed - so I didn't add more).
Reviewed by Ted Kremenek ( http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20120116/051690.html )
llvm-svn: 148640
Includes tests highlighting the cases where accuracy has improved
(there is one call that does no filtering beyond selecting the set
of allowed keywords, and one call that only triggers for ObjC code
for which a test by someone who knows ObjC would be welcome). Also
fixes a small typo in one of the suggestion messages, and drops a
malformed "expected-note" for a suggestion that did not occur even
when the malformed note was committed as r145930.
llvm-svn: 148420
not integer constant expressions. In passing, fix the 'folding is an extension'
diagnostic to not claim we're accepting the code, since that's not true in
-pedantic-errors mode, and add this diagnostic to -Wgnu.
llvm-svn: 148209
diagnostic message are compared. If either is a substring of the other, then
no error is given. This gives rise to an unexpected case:
// expect-error{{candidate function has different number of parameters}}
will match the following error messages from Clang:
candidate function has different number of parameters (expected 1 but has 2)
candidate function has different number of parameters
It will also match these other error messages:
candidate function
function has different number of parameters
number of parameters
This patch will change so that the verification string must be a substring of
the diagnostic message before accepting. Also, all the failing tests from this
change have been corrected. Some stats from this cleanup:
87 - removed extra spaces around verification strings
70 - wording updates to diagnostics
40 - extra leading or trailing characters (typos, unmatched parens or quotes)
35 - diagnostic level was included (error:, warning:, or note:)
18 - flag name put in the warning (-Wprotocol)
llvm-svn: 146619
whether an expression is a (core) constant expression as a side-effect of
evaluation. This takes us from accepting far too few expressions as ICEs to
accepting slightly too many -- fixes for the remaining cases are coming next.
The diagnostics produced when an expression is found to be non-constant are
currently quite poor (with generic wording but reasonable source locations),
and will be improved in subsequent commits.
llvm-svn: 146289
documentation) with one based on what GCC's __builtin_constant_p is actually
intended to do (discovered by asking a friendly GCC developer).
In particular, an expression which folds to a pointer is now only considered to
be a "constant" by this builtin if it refers to the first character in a string
literal.
This fixes a rather subtle wrong-code issue when building with glibc. Given:
const char cs[4] = "abcd";
int f(const char *p) { return strncmp(p, cs, 4); }
... the macro magic for strncmp produces a (potentially crashing) call to
strlen(cs), because it expands to an expression starting with:
__builtin_constant_p(cs) && strlen(cs) < 4 ? /* ... */
Under the secret true meaning of __builtin_constant_p, this is guaranteed to be
safe!
llvm-svn: 146236
they are treated as errors.
Doing typo correction when these are just warnings slows down the
compilation of source which deliberately uses implicit function
declarations.
llvm-svn: 146153
in addition to underlying type.
For example, the warning for printf("%zu", 42.0);
changes from "conversion specifies type 'unsigned long'" to "conversion
specifies type 'size_t' (aka 'unsigned long')"
(This is a second attempt after r145697, which got reverted.)
llvm-svn: 146032
Ted Kremenek