Commit Graph

16 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Bruno Ricci f5bbe390d2
[clang] SequenceChecker: C++17 sequencing rule for overloaded operators.
In C++17 the operand(s) of an overloaded operator are sequenced as for
the corresponding built-in operator when the overloaded operator is
called with the operator notation ([over.match.oper]p2).

Reported in PR35340.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D81330

Reviewed By: rsmith
2020-06-20 10:51:46 +01:00
Bruno Ricci a2f32bfcc7
[clang][Sema] SequenceChecker: C++17 sequencing rule for call expressions.
In C++17 the postfix-expression of a call expression is sequenced before
each expression in the expression-list and any default argument.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58579

Reviewed By: rsmith
2020-06-03 12:35:12 +01:00
Bruno Ricci 7394c15178
[Sema] SequenceChecker: C++17 sequencing rules for built-in operators <<, >>, .*, ->*, =, op=
Implement the C++17 sequencing rules for the built-in operators <<, >>, .*,
 ->*, = and op=.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58297

Reviewed By: rsmith
2019-12-22 12:41:14 +00:00
Bruno Ricci 8a571538df
[Sema] SequenceChecker: Fix handling of operator ||, && and ?:
The current handling of the operators ||, && and ?: has a number of false
positive and false negative. The issues for operator || and && are:

1. We need to add sequencing regions for the LHS and RHS as is done for the
   comma operator. Not doing so causes false positives in expressions like
   `((a++, false) || (a++, false))` (from PR39779, see PR22197 for another
    example).

2. In the current implementation when the evaluation of the LHS fails, the RHS
   is added to a worklist to be processed later. This results in false negatives
   in expressions like `(a && a++) + a`.

Fix these issues by introducing sequencing regions for the LHS and RHS, and by
not deferring the visitation of the RHS.

The issues with the ternary operator ?: are similar, with the added twist that
we should not warn on expressions like `(x ? y += 1 : y += 2)` since exactly
one of the 2nd and 3rd expression is going to be evaluated, but we should still
warn on expressions like `(x ? y += 1 : y += 2) = y`.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57747

Reviewed By: rsmith
2019-12-22 12:27:31 +00:00
Richard Smith 7d02ca4878 Use DiagRuntimeBehavior for -Wunsequenced to weed out false positives
where either the modification or the other access is unreachable.

This reverts r359984 (which reverted r359962). The bug in clang-tidy's
test suite exposed by the original commit was fixed in r360009.

llvm-svn: 360010
2019-05-06 04:14:01 +00:00
Simon Pilgrim 4c3fbbf635 Revert rL359962 : Use DiagRuntimeBehavior for -Wunsequenced to weed out false positives
where either the modification or the other access is unreachable.
........
Try to fix buildbots

llvm-svn: 359984
2019-05-05 17:10:05 +00:00
Richard Smith 5dbfa76334 Use DiagRuntimeBehavior for -Wunsequenced to weed out false positives
where either the modification or the other access is unreachable.

llvm-svn: 359962
2019-05-04 05:20:14 +00:00
Bruno Ricci 17e65b428f [Sema][NFC] SequenceChecker: More tests in preparation for D57660
llvm-svn: 354727
2019-02-23 16:25:00 +00:00
Bruno Ricci 4569e4a3ef [Sema][NFC] SequenceChecker: Add tests for references/members, and prepare for the C++17 tests
Add some tests for unsequenced operations with members and references.
For now most of it is unhandled but it shows what work needs to be done.

Also merge the tests for the C++17 sequencing rules in warn-unsequenced.cpp
since we want to make sure that the appropriate warnings are still present
in C++17 without duplicating the whole content of warn-unsequenced.cpp.

llvm-svn: 354151
2019-02-15 18:12:58 +00:00
Nicolas Lesser 5610cd8b46 Fix false positive unsequenced access and modification warning in array subscript expression.
Summary: In the [expr.sub] p1, we can read that for a given E1[E2], E1 is sequenced before E2. 

Patch by Mateusz Janek.

Reviewers: rsmith, Rakete1111

Reviewed By: rsmith, Rakete1111

Subscribers: riccibruno, lebedev.ri, Rakete1111, hiraditya, cfe-commits

Tags: #clang

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50766

llvm-svn: 350874
2019-01-10 19:03:33 +00:00
Richard Trieu 71d74d4b25 Fix false positive in -Wunsequenced and templates.
For builtin logical operators, there is a well-defined ordering of argument
evaluation.  For overloaded operator of the same type, there is no argument
evaluation order, similar to other function calls.  When both are present,
uninstantiated templates with an operator&& is treated as an unresolved
function call.  Unresolved function calls are treated as normal function calls,
and may result in false positives when the builtin logical operator is used.
Have the unsequenced checker ignore dependent expressions to avoid this
false positive.  The check also happens in template instantiations to catch
when the overloaded operator is used.

llvm-svn: 277866
2016-08-05 21:02:34 +00:00
Richard Smith e3dbfe04b7 Teach -Wunsequenced that the side-effects of a function evaluation are sequenced
before the value computation of the result. In C, this is implied by there being
a sequence point after their evaluation, and in C++, it's implied by the
side-effects being sequenced before the expressions and statements in the
function body.

llvm-svn: 185282
2013-06-30 10:40:20 +00:00
Richard Smith 83e37bee44 PR16467: Teach -Wunsequenced that in C11 (unlike C++11), an assignment's
side-effect is not sequenced before its value computation. Also fix a
mishandling of ?: expressions where the condition is constant that was
exposed by the tests for this.

llvm-svn: 185035
2013-06-26 23:16:51 +00:00
Richard Smith 5011a0022a Some builtins do not evaluate their arguments. Teach EvaluatedExprVisitor not
to visit them.

llvm-svn: 172769
2013-01-17 23:46:04 +00:00
Richard Smith 01a7fba820 -Wunsequenced: if the LHS of an &&, || or ?: is not constant, check for
unsequenced operations in the RHS. We don't compare the RHS with the rest of
the expression yet; such checks will need care to avoid diagnosing unsequenced
operations which are both in conditionally-evaluated subexpressions which
actually can't occur together, such as in '(b && ++x) + (!b && ++x)'.

llvm-svn: 172760
2013-01-17 22:06:26 +00:00
Richard Smith c406cb7364 Add -Wunsequenced (with compatibility alias -Wsequence-point) to warn on
expressions which have undefined behavior due to multiple unsequenced
modifications or an unsequenced modification and use of a variable.

llvm-svn: 172690
2013-01-17 01:17:56 +00:00