storage specifier is different from the storage specifier on the
template. If that storage specifier is the same, then we only warn.
Thanks to John for the prodding.
llvm-svn: 133236
C++, which means:
- binding the temporary as needed in Sema, so that we generate the
appropriate call to the destructor, and
- emitting the compound literal into the appropriate location for
the aggregate, rather than trying to emit it as a temporary and
memcpy() it.
Fixes PR10138 / <rdar://problem/9615901>.
llvm-svn: 133235
__builtin_ versions of these functions as well as the normal function
versions, so that it works on platforms where memset/memcpy/memmove
are macros that map down to the builtins (e.g., Darwin). Fixes
<rdar://problem/9372688>.
llvm-svn: 133173
checks that the deduced argument type for a function call matches the
actual argument type provided. The only place we've found where the
consistency checking should actually cause template argument deduction
failure is due to qualifier differences that don't fall into the realm
of qualification conversions (which are *not* checked when we
initially perform deduction). However, we're performing the full
checking as specified in the standard to ensure that no other cases
exist.
Fixes PR9233 / <rdar://problem/9039590>.
llvm-svn: 133163
and the programmer intended to write 'sizeof(*p)'. There are several
elements to the new version:
1) The actual expressions are compared in order to more accurately flag
the case where the pattern that works for an array has been used, or
a '*' has been omitted.
2) Only do a loose type-based check for record types. This prevents us
from warning when we happen to be copying around chunks of data the
size of a pointer and the pointer types for the sizeof and
source/dest match.
3) Move all the diagnostics behind the runtime diagnostic filter. Not
sure this is really important for this particular diagnostic, but
almost everything else in SemaChecking.cpp does so.
4) Make the wording of the diagnostic more precise and informative. At
least to my eyes.
5) Provide highlighting for the two expressions which had the unexpected
similarity.
6) Place this diagnostic under a flag: -Wsizeof-pointer-memaccess
This uses the Stmt::Profile system for computing #1. Because of the
potential cost, this is guarded by the warning flag. I'd be interested
in feedback on how bad this is in practice; I would expect it to be
quite cheap in practice. Ideas for a cheaper / better way to do this are
also welcome.
The diagnostic wording could likely use some further wordsmithing.
Suggestions welcome here. The goals I had were to: clarify that its the
interaction of 'memset' and 'sizeof' and give more reasonable
suggestions for a resolution.
An open question is whether these diagnostics should have the note
attached for silencing by casting the dest/source pointer to void*.
llvm-svn: 133155
argument types for mem{set,cpy,move}. Character pointers, much like void
pointers, often point to generic "memory", so trying to check whether
they match the type of the argument to 'sizeof' (or other checks) is
unproductive and often results in false positives.
Nico, please review; does this miss any of the bugs you were trying to
find with this warning? The array test case you had should be caught by
the array-specific sizeof warning I think.
llvm-svn: 133136
be more consistent in how parenthesized ranges which hit macros are
handled. Also makes the code significantly shorter, and the diagnostics
when macros are present a bit more useful.
Pair programmed w/ Matthew.
llvm-svn: 133122
Language-design credit goes to a lot of people, but I particularly want
to single out Blaine Garst and Patrick Beard for their contributions.
Compiler implementation credit goes to Argyrios, Doug, Fariborz, and myself,
in no particular order.
llvm-svn: 133103
were just punting on template argument deduction for a number of type
nodes. Most of them, obviously, didn't matter.
As a consequence of this, make extended vector types (via the
ext_vector_type attribute) actually work properly for several
important cases:
- If the attribute appears in a type-id (i.e, not attached to a
typedef), actually build a proper vector type
- Build ExtVectorType whenever the size is constant; previously, we
were building DependentSizedExtVectorType when the size was constant
but the type was dependent, which makes no sense at all.
- Teach template argument deduction to handle
ExtVectorType/DependentSizedExtVectorType.
llvm-svn: 133060
before the template parameters have acquired a proper context (e.g.,
because the enclosing context has yet to be built), provide empty
parameter lists for all outer template parameter scopes to inhibit any
substitution for those template parameters. Fixes PR9643 /
<rdar://problem/9251019>.
llvm-svn: 133055
Change the output for -Wshift-overflow and
-Wshift-sign-overflow to an unsigned hexadecimal. It makes
more sense for looking at bits than a signed decimal does.
Also, change the diagnostic's wording from "overrides"
to "sets".
This uses a new optional argument in APInt::toString()
that adds the '0x' prefix to hexademical numbers.
This fixes PR 9651.
Patch by nobled@dreamwidth.org!
llvm-svn: 133033
as constant size arrays. This has slightly different semantics in some insane cases, but allows
us to accept some constructs that GCC does. Continue to be pedantic in -std=c99 and other
modes. This addressed rdar://8733881 - error "variable-sized object may not be initialized"; g++ accepts same code
llvm-svn: 132983
- Move a test from test/SemaTemplate/instantiate-expr-3.cpp, it did not belong there
- Incomplete and abstract types are considered hard errors
llvm-svn: 132979
struct {
typedef int A = 0;
};
According to the C++11 standard, this is not ill-formed, but does not have any ascribed meaning. We can't reasonably accept it, so treat it as ill-formed.
Also switch C++ from an incorrect 'fields can only be initialized in constructors' diagnostic for this case to C's 'illegal initializer (only variables can be initialized)'
llvm-svn: 132890
Related result types apply Cocoa conventions to the type of message
sends and property accesses to Objective-C methods that are known to
always return objects whose type is the same as the type of the
receiving class (or a subclass thereof), such as +alloc and
-init. This tightens up static type safety for Objective-C, so that we
now diagnose mistakes like this:
t.m:4:10: warning: incompatible pointer types initializing 'NSSet *'
with an
expression of type 'NSArray *' [-Wincompatible-pointer-types]
NSSet *array = [[NSArray alloc] init];
^ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/System/Library/Frameworks/Foundation.framework/Headers/NSObject.h:72:1:
note:
instance method 'init' is assumed to return an instance of its
receiver
type ('NSArray *')
- (id)init;
^
It also means that we get decent type inference when writing code in
Objective-C++0x:
auto array = [[NSMutableArray alloc] initWithObjects:@"one", @"two",nil];
// ^ now infers NSMutableArray* rather than id
llvm-svn: 132868
I believe, upon, careful review, that this code causes us to incorrectly
handle exception specifications of copy assignment operators in C++03
mode. However, we currently do not seem to properly implement the subtle
distinction between copying of members and bases made by implicit copy
constructors and assignment operators in C++03 - namely that they are
limited in their overload selection - in all cases. As such, I feel that
committing this code is correct pending a careful review of our
implementation of these semantics.
llvm-svn: 132841
- Removed fix-it hints from template instaniations since changes to the
templates are rarely helpful.
- Changed the caret in template instaniations from the class/struct name to the
class/struct keyword, matching the other warnings.
- Do not offer fix-it hints when multiple declarations disagree. Warnings are
still given.
- Once a definition is found, offer a fix-it hint to all previous declarations
with wrong tag.
- Declarations that disagree with a previous definition will get a fix-it hint
to change the declaration.
llvm-svn: 132831
This is a follow-up to r132565, and should address the rest of PR9969:
Warn about cases such as
int foo(A a, bool b) {
return a + b ? 1 : 2; // user probably meant a + (b ? 1 : 2);
}
also when + is an overloaded operator call.
llvm-svn: 132784
Douglas Gregor