From the Intel Optimization Reference Manual, Section 11.6.2. When data cannot
be aligned or alignment is not known, 16-byte memory accesses may provide better
performance.
rdar://11076953
llvm-svn: 153091
This is accomplished by calling markInteresting /during/ path diagnostic generation, and as such relies on deterministic ordering of BugReporterVisitors -- namely, that BugReporterVisitors are run in /reverse/ order from how they are added. (Right now that's a consequence of storing visitors in an ImmutableList, where new items are added to the front.) It's a little hacky, but it works for now.
I think this is the best we can do without storing the relation between the old and new symbols, and that would be a hit whether or not there ends up being an error.
llvm-svn: 153010
Instead of suggesting " = 0" for "char c();", suggest " = '\0'", and similarly
for other char types (wide, 16, and 32). Add tests for all these, and since
this means testing such hints under C++0x, add tests for some untested C++0x
hint cases in the existing code, including suggesting nullptr for pointer
initialization.
This sets up the initialization helper to provide better type fidelity that
will be especially helpful for non-assignment cases (such as fixit-correcting
NULL usage in function calls (eg: foo(char) + foo(NULL) => foo('\0') instead
of the less informative foo(0)))
llvm-svn: 153008
I tried to test the effects of this change on memory usage and run time, but what I saw on retain-release.m was indistinguishable from noise (debug and release builds). Even so, some caveman profiling showed 101 cache hits that we would have generated new summaries for before (i.e. not default or stop summaries), and the more code we analyze, the more memory we should save.
Maybe we should have a standard project for benchmarking the retain count checker's memory and time?
llvm-svn: 153007
The one difference between ObjCMethodDecl::getMethodFamily and Selector::getMethodFamily is that the former will do some additional sanity checking, and since CoreFoundation types don't look like Objective-C objects, an otherwise interesting method will get a method family of OMF_None. Future clients that use method families should consider how they want to handle CF types.
llvm-svn: 153000
The cocoa::deriveNamingConventions helper is just using method families anyway now, and the way RetainSummaryTemplate works means we're allocating an extra summary for every method with a relevant family.
Also, fix RetainSummaryTemplate to do the right thing w/r/t annotating an /existing/ summary. This was probably the real cause of <rdar://problem/10824732> and the fix in r152448.
llvm-svn: 152998
writing @synchronized statement; do not call locking
expression more than once and support early exits in
@synchronized's statement block (such as return).
llvm-svn: 152993
The symbol-aware stack hint combines the checker-provided message
with the information about how the symbol was passed to the callee: as
a parameter or a return value.
For malloc, the generated messages look like this :
"Returning from 'foo'; released memory via 1st parameter"
"Returning from 'foo'; allocated memory via 1st parameter"
"Returning from 'foo'; allocated memory returned"
"Returning from 'foo'; reallocation of 1st parameter failed"
(We are yet to handle cases when the symbol is a field in a struct or
an array element.)
llvm-svn: 152962
% is a common character in IR so we'd crash on almost any malformed IR. The
diagnostic formatter expects a formatting directive when it sees an unescaped %.
llvm-svn: 152956
store to 1. This allows code-gen to select a more appropriate alignment. If left
to zero, an alignment greater than the alignment of the pointer may be selected,
causing code-gen to use instructions which require an alignment greater than the
pointer guarantees.
<rdar://problem/11043589>
llvm-svn: 152951
For "int i = NULL;" we would produce:
null.cpp:5:11: warning: implicit conversion of NULL constant to integer [-Wconversion]
int i = NULL;
~ ^~~~
null.cpp:1:14: note: expanded from macro 'NULL'
\#define NULL __null
^~~~~~
But we really shouldn't trace that macro expansion back into the header, yet we
still want macro back traces for code like this:
\#define FOO NULL
int i = FOO;
or
\#define FOO int i = NULL;
FOO
While providing appropriate tagging at different levels of the expansion, etc.
The included test case exercises these cases & does some basic validation (to
ensure we don't have macro expansion notes where we shouldn't, and do where we
should) - but doesn't go as far as to validate the source location/ranges
used in those notes and warnings.
llvm-svn: 152940
Benjamin Kramer