This introduces some tablegen helpers for defining compatibility
warnings. The main aim of this is to both simplify adding new
compatibility warnings as well as to unify the naming of compatibility
warnings.
I’ve refactored ~half of the compatiblity warnings (that follow the
usual scheme) in `DiagnosticSemaKinds.td` for illustration purposes and
also to simplify/unify the wording of some of them (I also corrected a
typo in one of them as a drive-by fix).
I haven’t (yet) migrated *all* warnings even in that one file, and there
are some more specialised ones for which the scheme I’ve established
here doesn’t work (e.g. because they’re warning+error instead of
warning+extwarn; however, warning+extension *is* supported), but the
point of this isn’t to implement *all* compatibility-related warnings
this way, only to make the common case a bit easier to handle.
This currently also only handles C++ compatibility warnings, but it
should be fairly straight-forward to extend the tablegen code so it can
also be used for C compatibility warnings (if this gets merged, I’m
planning to do that in a follow-up pr).
The vast majority of compatibility warnings are emitted by writing
```c++
Diag(Loc, getLangOpts().CPlusPlusYZ ? diag::ext_... : diag::warn_...)
```
in accordance with which I’ve chosen the following naming scheme:
```c++
Diag(Loc, getLangOpts().CPlusPlusYZ ? diag::compat_cxxyz_foo : diag::compat_pre_cxxyz_foo)
```
That is, for a warning about a C++20 feature—i.e. C++≤17
compatibility—we get:
```c++
Diag(Loc, getLangOpts().CPlusPlus20 ? diag::compat_cxx20_foo : diag::compat_pre_cxx20_foo)
```
While there is an argument to be made against writing ‘`compat_cxx20`’
here since is technically a case of ‘C++17 compatibility’ and not ‘C++20
compatibility’, I at least find this easier to reason about, because I
can just write the same number 3 times instead of having to use
`ext_cxx20_foo` but `warn_cxx17_foo`. Instead, I like to read this as a
warning about the ‘compatibility *of* a C++20 feature’ rather than
‘*with* C++17’.
I also experimented with moving all compatibility warnings to a separate
file, but 1. I don’t think it’s worth the effort, and 2. I think it
hurts compile times a bit because at least in my testing I felt that I
had to recompile more code than if we just keep e.g. Sema-specific
compat warnings in the Sema diagnostics file.
Instead, I’ve opted to put them all in the same place within any one
file; currently this is a the very top but I don’t really have strong
opinions about this.
In the discussion around #116792, @rjmccall mentioned that ARCMigrate
has been obsoleted and that we could go ahead and remove it from Clang,
so this patch does just that.
This paper made qualified function types implementation-defined. We have
always supported this as an extension, so now we're documenting our
behavior.
Note, we still warn about this by default even in C2y mode because a
qualified function type is a sign of programmer confusion.
Basically clang already implemented 90% of the feature as an extension.
This commit disables warnings for C23 and aligns types of enumerators
according to the recent wording.
The new warning flag is `-Winvalid-gnu-asm-cast`, which is enabled by
default and is a downgradable diagnostic which defaults to an error.
This language dialect flag only controls whether a single diagnostic is
emitted as a warning or as an error, and has never been expanded to
include other behaviors. Given the rather perjorative name, it's better
for us to just expose a diagnostic flag for the one warning in question
and let the user elect to do `-Wno-error=` if they need to.
There's not a lot of use of the language dialect flag in the wild, but
there is some use of it. For the time being, this aliases the -f flag to
`-Wno-error=invalid-gnu-asm-cast`, but the -f flag can eventually be
removed.
This reverts commit ce4aada6e2135e29839f672a6599db628b53295d and a
follow-up patch 8ef26f1289bf069ccc0d6383f2f4c0116a1206c1.
This new warning can not be fully suppressed by the
`-Wno-missing-dependent-template-keyword` flag, this gives developer no
time to do the cleanup in a large codebase, see https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/98547#issuecomment-2228250884
After commit ce4aada6e2135e29839f672a6599db628b53295d, we observed many
warnings in our internal codebase. It is infeasible to fix all at once.
Currently, there is no way to disable this warning. This patch provides
a way to disable it using the `-Wno-missing-dependent-template-keyword` flag.
Reapplies #92957, fixing an instance where the `template` keyword was
missing prior to a dependent name in `llvm/ADT/ArrayRef.h`. An
_alias-declaration_ is used to work around a bug affecting GCC releases
before 11.1 (see https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94799) which
rejects the use of the `template` keyword prior to the
_nested-name-specifier_ in the class member access.
CWG1835 was one of the many core issues resolved by P1787R6: "Declarations and where to
find them" (http://wg21.link/p1787r6). Its resolution changes how
member-qualified names (as defined by [basic.lookup.qual.general] p2) are looked
up. This patch implementation that resolution.
Previously, an _identifier_ following `.` or `->` would be first looked
up in the type of the object expression (i.e. qualified lookup), and
then in the context of the _postfix-expression_ (i.e. unqualified
lookup) if nothing was found; the result of the second lookup was
required to name a class template. Notably, this second lookup would
occur even when the object expression was dependent, and its result
would be used to determine whether a `<` token is the start of a
_template-argument_list_.
The new wording in [basic.lookup.qual.general] p2 states:
> A member-qualified name is the (unique) component name, if any, of
> - an _unqualified-id_ or
> - a _nested-name-specifier_ of the form _`type-name ::`_ or
_`namespace-name ::`_
>
> in the id-expression of a class member access expression. A
***qualified name*** is
> - a member-qualified name or
> - the terminal name of
> - a _qualified-id_,
> - a _using-declarator_,
> - a _typename-specifier_,
> - a _qualified-namespace-specifier_, or
> - a _nested-name-specifier_, _elaborated-type-specifier_, or
_class-or-decltype_ that has a _nested-name-specifier_.
>
> The _lookup context_ of a member-qualified name is the type of its
associated object expression (considered dependent if the object
expression is type-dependent). The lookup context of any other qualified
name is the type, template, or namespace nominated by the preceding
_nested-name-specifier_.
And [basic.lookup.qual.general] p3 now states:
> _Qualified name lookup_ in a class, namespace, or enumeration performs
a search of the scope associated with it except as specified below.
Unless otherwise specified, a qualified name undergoes qualified name
lookup in its lookup context from the point where it appears unless the
lookup context either is dependent and is not the current instantiation
or is not a class or class template. If nothing is found by qualified
lookup for a member-qualified name that is the terminal name of a
_nested-name-specifier_ and is not dependent, it undergoes unqualified
lookup.
In non-standardese terms, these two paragraphs essentially state the
following:
- A name that immediately follows `.` or `->` in a class member access
expression is a member-qualified name
- A member-qualified name will be first looked up in the type of the
object expression `T` unless `T` is a dependent type that is _not_ the
current instantiation, e.g.
```
template<typename T>
struct A
{
void f(T* t)
{
this->x; // type of the object expression is 'A<T>'. although 'A<T>' is dependent, it is the
// current instantiation so we look up 'x' in the template definition context.
t->y; // type of the object expression is 'T' ('->' is transformed to '.' per [expr.ref]).
// 'T' is dependent and is *not* the current instantiation, so we lookup 'y' in the
// template instantiation context.
}
};
```
- If the first lookup finds nothing and:
- the member-qualified name is the first component of a
_nested-name-specifier_ (which could be an _identifier_ or a
_simple-template-id_), and either:
- the type of the object expression is the current instantiation and it
has no dependent base classes, or
- the type of the object expression is not dependent
then we lookup the name again, this time via unqualified lookup.
Although the second (unqualified) lookup is stated not to occur when the
member-qualified name is dependent, a dependent name will _not_ be
dependent once the template is instantiated, so the second lookup must
"occur" during instantiation if qualified lookup does not find anything.
This means that we must perform the second (unqualified) lookup during
parsing even when the type of the object expression is dependent, but
those results are _not_ used to determine whether a `<` token is the
start of a _template-argument_list_; they are stored so we can replicate
the second lookup during instantiation.
In even simpler terms (paraphrasing the meeting minutes from the review of P1787; see https://wiki.edg.com/bin/view/Wg21summer2020/P1787%28Lookup%29Review2020-06-15Through2020-06-18):
- Unqualified lookup always happens for the first name in a
_nested-name-specifier_ that follows `.` or `->`
- The result of that lookup is only used to determine whether `<` is the
start of a _template-argument-list_ if the first (qualified) lookup
found nothing and the lookup context:
- is not dependent, or
- is the current instantiation and has no dependent base classes.
An example:
```
struct A
{
void f();
};
template<typename T>
using B = A;
template<typename T>
struct C : A
{
template<typename U>
void g();
void h(T* t)
{
this->g<int>(); // ok, '<' is the start of a template-argument-list ('g' was found via qualified lookup in the current instantiation)
this->B<void>::f(); // ok, '<' is the start of a template-argument-list (current instantiation has no dependent bases, 'B' was found via unqualified lookup)
t->g<int>(); // error: '<' means less than (unqualified lookup does not occur for a member-qualified name that isn't the first component of a nested-name-specifier)
t->B<void>::f(); // error: '<' means less than (unqualified lookup does not occur if the name is dependent)
t->template B<void>::f(); // ok: '<' is the start of a template-argument-list ('template' keyword used)
}
};
```
Some additional notes:
- Per [basic.lookup.qual.general] p1, lookup for a
member-qualified name only considers namespaces, types, and templates
whose specializations are types if it's an _identifier_ followed by
`::`; lookup for the component name of a _simple-template-id_ followed
by `::` is _not_ subject to this rule.
- The wording which specifies when the second unqualified lookup occurs
appears to be paradoxical. We are supposed to do it only for the first
component name of a _nested-name-specifier_ that follows `.` or `->`
when qualified lookup finds nothing. However, when that name is followed
by `<` (potentially starting a _simple-template-id_) we don't _know_
whether it will be the start of a _nested-name-specifier_ until we do
the lookup -- but we aren't supposed to do the lookup until we know it's
part of a _nested-name-specifier_! ***However***, since we only do the
second lookup when the first lookup finds nothing (and the name isn't
dependent), ***and*** since neither lookup is type-only, the only valid
option is for the name to be the _template-name_ in a
_simple-template-id_ that is followed by `::` (it can't be an
_unqualified-id_ naming a member because we already determined that the
lookup context doesn't have a member with that name). Thus, we can lock
into the _nested-name-specifier_ interpretation and do the second lookup
without having to know whether the _simple-template-id_ will be followed
by `::` yet.
With the recent fix for this situation in class members (#93873) (for
which the fixed code is invalid prior to this patch - making migrating
code difficult as it must be in lock-step with the compiler migration,
if building with -Werror) it'd be really useful to be able to disable
this warning during the compiler migration/decouple the compiler
migration from the source fixes.
In theory this approach will regress the codebase to the previous
non-member cases of this issue that were already being held back by the
warning (as opposed to if we carved out the new cases into a separate
warning from the existing cases) but I think this'll be so rare and the
cleanup so simple, that the extra regressions of disabling the warning
broadly won't be too much of a problem. (but if folks disagree, I'm open
to making the warning more fine-grained)
This diagnostic is one of the ones that GCC also does not have a
warning group for, but a user requested adding a group to control
selectively turning off this diagnostic. So this adds the diagnostic
to a new group, -Wtentative-definition-array
Fixes#87766
The patch fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/83407
modifing __builtin_cpu_supports behaviour so that it returns false if
unsupported features names provided in parameter and issue a warning.
__builtin_cpu_supports is target independent, but currently supported by
X86, AArch64 and PowerPC only.
We currently accept the following explicit specialization with a warning
for the extraneous template parameter list:
```
template<typename T>
void f();
template<>
template<>
void f<int>(); // warning: extraneous template parameter list in template specialization
```
This should really be an extension warning so we reject with
`-pedantic-errors`. This patch converts the warning to an extension
warning.
Introduce Code Object V6 in Clang, LLD, Flang and LLVM. This is the same
as V5 except a new "generic version" flag can be present in EFLAGS. This
is related to new generic targets that'll be added in a follow-up patch.
It's also likely V6 will have new changes (possibly new metadata
entries) added later.
Docs change are part of the follow-up patch #76955
This reverts commit d50d9946d1d7e5f20881f0bc71fbd025040b1c96.
Broke check-clang, see comments on https://reviews.llvm.org/D126067
Also revert dependent change "[analyzer] Deprecate the unused 'analyzer-opt-analyze-nested-blocks' cc1 flag"
This reverts commit 07b4a6d0461fe64e10d30029ed3d598e49ca3810.
Also revert "[analyzer] Fix buildbots after introducing a new frontend warning"
This reverts commit 90374df15ddc58d823ca42326a76f58e748f20eb.
(See https://reviews.llvm.org/rG90374df15ddc58d823ca42326a76f58e748f20eb)
It seems like I should have ran the `check-clang` target after introducing a new warning diagnostic entry.
My bad. I'll run it next time; `check-clang-analysis` was not enough.
Here is a link to the broken bot: http://45.33.8.238/linux/78236/step_7.txt
This commit should fix this.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D126067
C89 allowed a type specifier to be elided with the resulting type being
int, aka implicit int behavior. This feature was subsequently removed
in C99 without a deprecation period, so implementations continued to
support the feature. Now, as with implicit function declarations, is a
good time to reevaluate the need for this support.
This patch allows -Wimplicit-int to issue warnings in C89 mode (off by
default), defaults the warning to an error in C99 through C17, and
disables support for the feature entirely in C2x. It also removes a
warning about missing declaration specifiers that really was just an
implicit int warning in disguise and other minor related cleanups.
This reverts commit 25cdf87b13eb990eb84d31211280f4b0d5d470b3.
125abb61f7ae reverted the patch.
It is incorrect to update this file when a flagless warning is added.
This test exists to make sure _all_ warnings are behind a flag.
The right fix is to put the new warning in a warning group (so that
it can be toggled with a flag), not to update the list here.
This implements P2362, which has not yet been approved by the
C++ committee, but because wide-multi character literals are
implementation defined, clang might not have to wait for WG21.
This change is also being applied in C mode as the behavior is
implementation-defined in C as well and there's no benefit to
having different rules between the languages.
The other part of P2362, making non-representable character
literals ill-formed, is already implemented by clang
Simply use of extensions by allowing the use of supported
double types without the pragma. Since earlier standards
instructed that the pragma is used explicitly a new warning
is introduced in pedantic mode to indicate that use of
type without extension pragma enable can be non-portable.
This patch does not break backward compatibility since the
extension pragma is still supported and it makes the behavior
of the compiler less strict by accepting code without extra
pragma statements.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100980
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
Supersedes D80225. Add --ld-path= to avoid strange target specific
prefixes and make -fuse-ld= focus on its intended job: "linker flavor".
(-f* affects generated code or language features. --ld-path does not
affect codegen, so it is not named -f*)
The way --ld-path= works is similar to "Command Search and Execution" in POSIX.1-2017 2.9.1 Simple Commands.
If --ld-path= specifies
* an absolute path, the value specifies the linker.
* a relative path without a path component separator (/), the value is searched using the -B, COMPILER_PATH, then PATH.
* a relative path with a path component separator, the linker is found relative to the current working directory.
-fuse-ld= and --ld-path= can be composed, e.g. `-fuse-ld=lld --ld-path=/usr/bin/ld.lld`
The driver can base its linker option decision on the flavor -fuse-ld=, but it should not do fragile
flavor checking with --ld-path=.
Reviewed By: whitequark, keith
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83015
I have a follow-on patch that uses an alternative wording for
ext_excess_initializers in some cases. This patch puts it and
a couple of related warnings under their own -W option in order
to avoid a regression in Misc/warning-flags.c.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79244
While building openJDK11u, it seems that some of the code in the
native core libraries make liberal use of integer to pointer
comparisons. We currently have no flag to disabled this warning.
This add such a flag.
Patch by Kader (abdoul-kader keita)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56241
llvm-svn: 351082
The C standard doesn't allow comparisons like "f1 < f2" (where f1 and f2
are function pointers), but we allow them as an extension. Add a
warning flag to control this warning.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46155
llvm-svn: 331570
Found via codespell -q 3 -I ../clang-whitelist.txt
Where whitelist consists of:
archtype
cas
classs
checkk
compres
definit
frome
iff
inteval
ith
lod
methode
nd
optin
ot
pres
statics
te
thru
Patch by luzpaz! (This is a subset of D44188 that applies cleanly with a few
files that have dubious fixes reverted.)
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44188
llvm-svn: 329399
We were injecting the function into the wrong semantic context, resulting in it
failing to be registered as a global for redeclaration lookup. As a
consequence, we accepted invalid code since r310616.
Fixing that resulted in the "out-of-scope declaration" diagnostic firing a lot
more often. It turned out that warning codepath was non-conforming, because it
did not cause us to inject the implicitly-declared function into the enclosing
block scope. We now only warn if the type of the out-of-scope declaration
doesn't match the type of an implicitly-declared function; in all other cases,
we produce the normal warning for an implicitly-declared function.
llvm-svn: 314871
As a first step toward removing Objective-C garbage collection from
Clang, remove support from the driver. I'm hoping this will flush out
any expected bots/configurations/whatever that might rely on it.
I've left the options behind temporarily in -cc1 to keep tests passing.
I'll kill them off entirely in a follow up when I've had a chance to
update/delete the rest of Clang.
llvm-svn: 288872
Expose a warning flag for warn_duplicate_protocol_def. This allows control
over the severity of duplicate protocol definitions.
For example -Werror=duplicate-protocol or
#pragma clang diagnostic ignored "-Wduplicate-protocol".
Patch provided by Dave Lee!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26406
llvm-svn: 286487
This has two significant effects:
1) Direct relational comparisons between null pointer constants (0 and nullopt)
and pointers are now ill-formed. This was always the case for C, and it
appears that C++ only ever permitted by accident. For instance, cases like
nullptr < &a
are now rejected.
2) Comparisons and conditional operators between differently-cv-qualified
pointer types now work, and produce a composite type that both source
pointer types can convert to (when possible). For instance, comparison
between 'int **' and 'const int **' is now valid, and uses an intermediate
type of 'const int *const *'.
Clang previously supported #2 as an extension.
We do not accept the cases in #1 as an extension. I've tested a fair amount of
code to check that this doesn't break it, but if it turns out that someone is
relying on this, we can easily add it back as an extension.
This is a re-commit of r284800.
llvm-svn: 284890
This has two significant effects:
1) Direct relational comparisons between null pointer constants (0 and nullopt)
and pointers are now ill-formed. This was always the case for C, and it
appears that C++ only ever permitted by accident. For instance, cases like
nullptr < &a
are now rejected.
2) Comparisons and conditional operators between differently-cv-qualified
pointer types now work, and produce a composite type that both source
pointer types can convert to (when possible). For instance, comparison
between 'int **' and 'const int **' is now valid, and uses an intermediate
type of 'const int *const *'.
Clang previously supported #2 as an extension.
We do not accept the cases in #1 as an extension. I've tested a fair amount of
code to check that this doesn't break it, but if it turns out that someone is
relying on this, we can easily add it back as an extension.
llvm-svn: 284800
This option behaves in a similar spirit as -save-temps and writes
internal llvm statistics in json format to a file.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24820
llvm-svn: 282426
