uncovered.
This required manually correcting all of the incorrect main-module
headers I could find, and running the new llvm/utils/sort_includes.py
script over the files.
I also manually added quite a few missing headers that were uncovered by
shuffling the order or moving headers up to be main-module-headers.
llvm-svn: 169237
There was enough consensus that we *can* get a good language solution
to have an annotation outside of C++11, and without this annotation
this warning doesn't quite mean's completeness criteria for this
kind of warning. For now, restrict this warning to C++11 (where an
annotation exists), and make this the behavior for the LLVM 3.2 release.
Afterwards, we will hammer out a language solution that we are all
happy with.
llvm-svn: 167749
The rationale is that there is no good workflow to silence the warning
for specific cases, other than using pragmas. This is because the
attribute to decorate an explicit fall through is only available
in C++11.
By that argument, this should probably also be disabled unless one
is using C++11, but apparently there is an explicit test case for
this warning when using C++98. This will require further discussion
on cfe-commits.
Fixes: <rdar://problem/12584746>
llvm-svn: 167655
Previously, the warning would erroneously fire on this:
for (Test *a in someArray)
use(a.weakProp);
...because it looks like the same property is being accessed over and over.
However, clearly this is not the case. We now ignore loops like this for
local variables, but continue to warn if the base object is a parameter,
global variable, or instance variable, on the assumption that these are
not repeatedly usually assigned to within loops.
Additionally, do-while loops where the condition is 'false' are not really
loops at all; usually they're just used for semicolon-swallowing macros or
using "break" like "goto".
<rdar://problem/12578785&12578849>
llvm-svn: 166942
This is a "safe" pattern, or at least one that cannot be helped by using
a strong local variable. However, if the single read is within a loop,
it should /always/ be treated as potentially dangerous.
<rdar://problem/12437490>
llvm-svn: 165719
Summary:
When issuing a diagnostic message for the -Wimplicit-fallthrough diagnostics, always try to find the latest macro, defined at the point of fallthrough, which is immediately expanded to "[[clang::fallthrough]]", and use it's name instead of the actual sequence.
Known issues:
* uses PP.getSpelling() to compare macro definition with a string (anyone can suggest a convenient way to fill a token array, or maybe lex it in runtime?);
* this can be generalized and used in other similar cases, any ideas where it should reside then?
Reviewers: doug.gregor, rsmith
Reviewed By: rsmith
CC: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D50
llvm-svn: 164858
Like properties, loading from a weak ivar twice in the same function can
give you inconsistent results if the object is deallocated between the
two loads. It is safer to assign to a strong local variable and use that.
Second half of <rdar://problem/12280249>.
llvm-svn: 164855
The motivating example:
if (self.weakProp)
use(self.weakProp);
As with any non-atomic test-then-use, it is possible a weak property to be
non-nil at the 'if', but be deallocated by the time it is used. The correct
way to write this example is as follows:
id tmp = self.weakProp;
if (tmp)
use(tmp);
The warning is controlled by -Warc-repeated-use-of-receiver, and uses the
property name and base to determine if the same property on the same object
is being accessed multiple times. In cases where the base is more
complicated than just a single Decl (e.g. 'foo.bar.weakProp'), it picks a
Decl for some degree of uniquing and reports the problem under a subflag,
-Warc-maybe-repeated-use-of-receiver. This gives a way to tune the
aggressiveness of the warning for a particular project.
The warning is not on by default because it is not flow-sensitive and thus
may have a higher-than-acceptable rate of false positives, though it is
less noisy than -Wreceiver-is-weak. On the other hand, it will not warn
about some cases that may be legitimate issues that -Wreceiver-is-weak
will catch, and it does not attempt to reason about methods returning weak
values.
Even though this is not a real "analysis-based" check I've put the bug
emission code in AnalysisBasedWarnings for two reasons: (1) to run on
every kind of code body (function, method, block, or lambda), and (2) to
suggest that it may be enhanced by flow-sensitive analysis in the future.
The second (smaller) half of this work is to extend it to weak locals
and weak ivars. This should use most of the same infrastructure.
Part of <rdar://problem/12280249>
llvm-svn: 164854
analysis that may give false positives because it is confused by aliasing, and
a less precise analysis that has fewer false positives, but may have false
negatives. The more precise warnings are enabled by -Wthread-safety-precise.
An additional note clarify the warnings in the precise case.
llvm-svn: 163537
* Treat compound assignment as a use, at Jordy's request.
* Always add compound assignments into the CFG, so we can correctly diagnose the use in 'return x += 1;'
llvm-svn: 160334
-Wsometimes-uninitialized diagnostics to make it clearer that the cause
of the issue may be a condition which must always evaluate to true or
false, rather than an uninitialized variable.
To emphasize this, add a new note with a fixit which removes the
impossible condition or replaces it with a constant.
Also, downgrade the diagnostic from -Wsometimes-uninitialized to
-Wconditional-uninitialized when it applies to a range-based for loop,
since the condition is not written explicitly in the code in that case.
llvm-svn: 157511
-Wsometimes-uninitialized. This detects cases where an explicitly-written branch
inevitably leads to an uninitialized variable use (so either the branch is dead
code or there is an uninitialized use bug).
This chunk of warnings tentatively lives within -Wuninitialized, in order to
give it more visibility to existing Clang users.
llvm-svn: 157458
cases in switch statements. Also add a [[clang::fallthrough]] attribute, which
can be used to suppress the warning in the case of intentional fallthrough.
Patch by Alexander Kornienko!
The handling of C++11 attribute namespaces in this patch is temporary, and will
be replaced with a cleaner mechanism in a subsequent patch.
llvm-svn: 156086
#define TEST int y; int x = y;
void foo() {
TEST
}
-Wuninitialized gives this warning:
invalid-loc.cc:4:3: warning: variable 'y' is uninitialized when used here
[-Wuninitialized]
TEST
^~~~
invalid-loc.cc:2:29: note: expanded from macro 'TEST'
#define TEST int y; int x = y;
^
note: initialize the variable 'y' to silence this warning
1 warning generated.
The second note lacks filename, line number, and code snippet. This change
will remove the fixit and only point to variable declaration.
invalid-loc.cc:4:3: warning: variable 'y' is uninitialized when used here
[-Wuninitialized]
TEST
^~~~
invalid-loc.cc:2:29: note: expanded from macro 'TEST'
#define TEST int y; int x = y;
^
invalid-loc.cc:4:3: note: variable 'y' is declared here
TEST
^
invalid-loc.cc:2:14: note: expanded from macro 'TEST'
#define TEST int y; int x = y;
^
1 warning generated.
llvm-svn: 156045
std::list is expensive, but so is std::sorting a SmallVector of SmallVectors of
heavyweight PartialDiagnostics.
Saves ~30k in a i386-linux-Release+Asserts clang build.
llvm-svn: 153437
function, provide a specialized diagnostic that indicates the kind of
special member function (default constructor, copy assignment
operator, etc.) and that it was implicitly deleted. Add a hook where
we can provide more detailed information later.
llvm-svn: 150611
This seems to negatively affect compile time onsome ObjC tests
(which use a lot of partial diagnostics I assume). I have to come
up with a way to keep them inline without including Diagnostic.h
everywhere. Now adding a new diagnostic requires a full rebuild
of e.g. the static analyzer which doesn't even use those diagnostics.
This reverts commit 6496bd10dc3a6d5e3266348f08b6e35f8184bc99.
This reverts commit 7af19b817ba964ac560b50c1ed6183235f699789.
This reverts commit fdd15602a42bbe26185978ef1e17019f6d969aa7.
This reverts commit 00bd44d5677783527d7517c1ffe45e4d75a0f56f.
This reverts commit ef9b60ffed980864a8db26ad30344be429e58ff5.
llvm-svn: 150006
Fix all the files that depended on transitive includes of Diagnostic.h.
With this patch in place changing a diagnostic no longer requires a full rebuild of the StaticAnalyzer.
llvm-svn: 149781
* When we detect that a CFG block has inconsistent lock sets, point the
diagnostic at the location where we found the inconsistency, and point a note
at somewhere the inconsistently-locked mutex was locked.
* Fix the wording of the normal (non-loop, non-end-of-function) case of this
diagnostic to not suggest that the mutex is going out of scope.
* Fix the diagnostic emission code to keep a warning and its note together when
sorting the diagnostics into source location order.
llvm-svn: 149669
- If the declarator is at the start of a line, and the previous line contained
another declarator and ended with a comma, then that comma was probably a
typo for a semicolon:
int n = 0, m = 1, l = 2, // k = 5;
myImportantFunctionCall(); // oops!
- If removing the parentheses would correctly initialize the object, then
produce a note suggesting that fix.
- Otherwise, if there is a simple initializer we can suggest which performs
value-initialization, then provide a note suggesting a correction to that
initializer.
Sema::Declarator now tracks the location of the comma prior to the declarator in
the declaration, if there is one, to facilitate providing the note. The code to
determine an appropriate initializer from the -Wuninitialized warning has been
factored out to allow use in both that and -Wvexing-parse.
llvm-svn: 148072
explicit template specializations (which represent actual functions somebody wrote).
Along the way, refactor some other code which similarly cares about whether or
not they are looking at a template instantiation.
llvm-svn: 145547
