This implements support for allowing {} to consistently zero initialize
objects. We already supported most of this work as a GNU extension, but
the C2x feature goes beyond what the GNU extension allowed.
The changes in this patch are:
* Removed the -Wgnu-empty-initializer warning group. The extension is
now a C2x extension warning instead. Note that use of
`-Wno-gnu-empty-initializer seems` to be quite low in the wild
(https://sourcegraph.com/search?q=context%3Aglobal+-file%3A.*test.*+%22-Wno-gnu-empty-initializer%22&patternType=standard&sm=1&groupBy=repo
which currently only gives 8 hits total), so this is not expected to
be an overly disruptive change. But I'm adding the clang vendors
review group just in case this expectation is wrong.
* Reworded the diagnostic wording to be about a C2x extension, added a
pre-C2x compat warning.
* Allow {} to zero initialize a VLA
This functionality is exposed as an extension in all older C modes
(same as the GNU extension was), but does *not* allow the extension for
VLA initialization in C++ due to concern about handling non-trivially
constructible types.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D147349
C89 had a questionable feature where the compiler would implicitly
declare a function that the user called but was never previously
declared. The resulting function would be globally declared as
extern int func(); -- a function without a prototype which accepts zero
or more arguments.
C99 removed support for this questionable feature due to severe
security concerns. However, there was no deprecation period; C89 had
the feature, C99 didn't. So Clang (and GCC) both supported the
functionality as an extension in C99 and later modes.
C2x no longer supports that function signature as it now requires all
functions to have a prototype, and given the known security issues with
the feature, continuing to support it as an extension is not tenable.
This patch changes the diagnostic behavior for the
-Wimplicit-function-declaration warning group depending on the language
mode in effect. We continue to warn by default in C89 mode (due to the
feature being dangerous to use). However, because this feature will not
be supported in C2x mode, we've diagnosed it as being invalid for so
long, the security concerns with the feature, and the trivial
workaround for users (declare the function), we now default the
extension warning to an error in C99-C17 mode. This still gives users
an easy workaround if they are extensively using the extension in those
modes (they can disable the warning or use -Wno-error to downgrade the
error), but the new diagnostic makes it more clear that this feature is
not supported and should be avoided. In C2x mode, we no longer allow an
implicit function to be defined and treat the situation the same as any
other lookup failure.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D122983
A significant number of our tests in C accidentally use functions
without prototypes. This patch converts the function signatures to have
a prototype for the situations where the test is not specific to K&R C
declarations. e.g.,
void func();
becomes
void func(void);
This is the third batch of tests being updated (there are a significant
number of other tests left to be updated).
Similar to variables with an initializer, this is never valid in
standard C, so we can safely constant-fold as an extension. I ran into
this construct in a couple proprietary codebases.
While I'm here, drive-by fix for 090dd647: we should only fold variables
with VLA types, not arbitrary variably modified types.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98363
552c6c2 removed support for promoting VLAs to constant arrays when the bounds
isn't an ICE, since this can result in miscompiling a conforming program that
assumes that the array is a VLA. Promoting VLAs for fields is still supported,
since clang doesn't support VLAs in fields, so no conforming program could have
a field VLA.
This change is really disruptive, so this commit carves out two more cases
where we promote VLAs which can't miscompile a conforming program:
- When the VLA appears in an ivar -- this seems like a corollary to the field thing
- When the VLA has an initializer -- VLAs can't have an initializer
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90871
Old GCC used to aggressively fold VLAs to constant-bound arrays at block
scope in GNU mode. That's non-conforming, and more modern versions of
GCC only do this at file scope. Update Clang to do the same.
Also promote the warning for this from off-by-default to on-by-default
in all cases; more recent versions of GCC likewise warn on this by
default.
This is still slightly more permissive than GCC, as pointed out in
PR44406, as we still fold VLAs to constant arrays in structs, but that
seems justifiable given that we don't support VLA-in-struct (and don't
intend to ever support it), but GCC does.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89523
For pointer assignments of VLA types, Clang currently detects when array
dimensions _lower_ than a variable dimension differ, and reports a warning.
However it does not do the same when the _higher_ dimensions differ, a
case that GCC does catch.
These two pointer types
int (*foo)[1][bar][3];
int (*baz)[1][2][3];
are compatible with each another, and the program is well formed if
bar == 2, a matter that is the programmers problem. However the following:
int (*qux)[2][2][3];
would not be compatible with either, because the upper dimension differs
in size. Clang reports baz is incompatible with qux, but not that foo is
incompatible with qux because it doesn't check those higher dimensions.
Fix this by comparing array sizes on higher dimensions: if both are
constants but unequal then report incompatibility; if either dimension is
variable then we can't know either way.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47628
llvm-svn: 333989
A [*] is only allowed in a declaration for a function, not in its
definition. We didn't correctly recurse while looking for it, causing
us to crash in CodeGen instead of rejecting it.
This fixes PR23151.
llvm-svn: 234363
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
- This is designed to make it obvious that %clang_cc1 is a "test variable"
which is substituted. It is '%clang_cc1' instead of '%clang -cc1' because it
can be useful to redefine what gets run as 'clang -cc1' (for example, to set
a default target).
llvm-svn: 91446
external declarations to also support external variable
declarations. Unified the code for these two cases into two new
subroutines.
Note that we fail to diagnose cases like the one Neil pointed
out, where a visible non-external declaration hides an external
declaration by the same name. That will require some reshuffling of
name lookup.
llvm-svn: 65385
