Project Ortega BCM5719 LLVM https://git.raptorcs.com/git/bcm5719-llvm/atom?h=meklort-10.0.1 2019-09-07T00:34:47+00:00 2019-09-07T00:34:47+00:00 Akira Hatanaka ahatanaka@apple.com 2019-09-07T00:34:47+00:00 urn:sha1:3f2c9917a4310a2835ffcc5a7be6226d0d218682 qualifications as unavailable if the union is declared in a system header r365985 stopped marking those fields as unavailable, which caused the union's NonTrivialToPrimitive* bits to be set to true. This patch restores the behavior prior to r365985, except that users can explicitly specify the ownership qualification of the field to instruct the compiler not to mark it as unavailable. rdar://problem/53420753 Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65256 llvm-svn: 371276 2018-01-03T23:52:42+00:00 Alex Lorenz arphaman@gmail.com 2018-01-03T23:52:42+00:00 urn:sha1:26d282fc5f37bef3623d88c14560063b5d68bf7c a warning This commit separates out the warn_nsconsumed_attribute_mismatch and warn_nsreturns_retained_attribute_mismatch diagnostic into a warning and error. This is needed to avoid a module import regression introduced by r313717 that turned these errors into warnings and started promoting them only when needed, which caused an error when importing a module as it had different warning settings. rdar://36265651 llvm-svn: 321775 2017-07-28T14:41:21+00:00 Alex Lorenz arphaman@gmail.com 2017-07-28T14:41:21+00:00 urn:sha1:45b40147117668ce65bff4f6a240bdae4ad4bf7d '#pragma pack (pop)' and suspicious uses of '#pragma pack' in included files The second recommit (r309106) was reverted because the "non-default #pragma pack value chages the alignment of struct or union members in the included file" warning proved to be too aggressive for external projects like Chromium (https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=749197). This recommit makes the problematic warning a non-default one, and gives it the -Wpragma-pack-suspicious-include warning option. The first recommit (r308441) caused a "non-default #pragma pack value might change the alignment of struct or union members in the included file" warning in LLVM itself. This recommit tweaks the added warning to avoid warnings for #includes that don't have any records that are affected by the non-default alignment. This tweak avoids the previously emitted warning in LLVM. Original message: This commit adds a new -Wpragma-pack warning. It warns in the following cases: - When a translation unit is missing terminating #pragma pack (pop) directives. - When entering an included file if the current alignment value as determined by '#pragma pack' directives is different from the default alignment value. - When leaving an included file that changed the state of the current alignment value. rdar://10184173 Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35484 llvm-svn: 309386 2017-07-26T21:29:24+00:00 Hans Wennborg hans@hanshq.net 2017-07-26T21:29:24+00:00 urn:sha1:b4ece98a3493c67f5a4959c0c7143b82fad13906 The warning fires on non-suspicious code in Chromium. Reverting until a solution is figured out. > Recommit r308327 2nd time: Add a warning for missing > '#pragma pack (pop)' and suspicious uses of '#pragma pack' in included files > > The first recommit (r308441) caused a "non-default #pragma pack value might > change the alignment of struct or union members in the included file" warning > in LLVM itself. This recommit tweaks the added warning to avoid warnings for > #includes that don't have any records that are affected by the non-default > alignment. This tweak avoids the previously emitted warning in LLVM. > > Original message: > > This commit adds a new -Wpragma-pack warning. It warns in the following cases: > > - When a translation unit is missing terminating #pragma pack (pop) directives. > - When entering an included file if the current alignment value as determined > by '#pragma pack' directives is different from the default alignment value. > - When leaving an included file that changed the state of the current alignment > value. > > rdar://10184173 > > Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35484 llvm-svn: 309186 2017-07-26T12:20:57+00:00 Alex Lorenz arphaman@gmail.com 2017-07-26T12:20:57+00:00 urn:sha1:5d48424a30960cce0b5b178a284eedab1c16c79c '#pragma pack (pop)' and suspicious uses of '#pragma pack' in included files The first recommit (r308441) caused a "non-default #pragma pack value might change the alignment of struct or union members in the included file" warning in LLVM itself. This recommit tweaks the added warning to avoid warnings for #includes that don't have any records that are affected by the non-default alignment. This tweak avoids the previously emitted warning in LLVM. Original message: This commit adds a new -Wpragma-pack warning. It warns in the following cases: - When a translation unit is missing terminating #pragma pack (pop) directives. - When entering an included file if the current alignment value as determined by '#pragma pack' directives is different from the default alignment value. - When leaving an included file that changed the state of the current alignment value. rdar://10184173 Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35484 llvm-svn: 309106 2017-07-19T12:31:01+00:00 Hans Wennborg hans@hanshq.net 2017-07-19T12:31:01+00:00 urn:sha1:f365d423a078c6902e14b64ecece25e21c512f37 This seems to have broken the sanitizer-x86_64-linux buildbot. Reverting until it's fixed, especially since this landed just before the 5.0 branch. > This commit adds a new -Wpragma-pack warning. It warns in the following cases: > > - When a translation unit is missing terminating #pragma pack (pop) directives. > - When entering an included file if the current alignment value as determined > by '#pragma pack' directives is different from the default alignment value. > - When leaving an included file that changed the state of the current alignment > value. > > rdar://10184173 > > Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35484 llvm-svn: 308455 2017-07-19T11:30:41+00:00 Alex Lorenz arphaman@gmail.com 2017-07-19T11:30:41+00:00 urn:sha1:287f684c18b74faebd913cc9d11eb3e0feab5198 and suspicious uses of '#pragma pack' in included files This commit adds a new -Wpragma-pack warning. It warns in the following cases: - When a translation unit is missing terminating #pragma pack (pop) directives. - When entering an included file if the current alignment value as determined by '#pragma pack' directives is different from the default alignment value. - When leaving an included file that changed the state of the current alignment value. rdar://10184173 Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35484 llvm-svn: 308441 2017-07-18T17:36:42+00:00 Alex Lorenz arphaman@gmail.com 2017-07-18T17:36:42+00:00 urn:sha1:aa619221577f57c554c6d0d6523bdf73f38d4200 I forgot to test clang-tools-extra which is now failing. llvm-svn: 308328 2017-07-18T17:23:51+00:00 Alex Lorenz arphaman@gmail.com 2017-07-18T17:23:51+00:00 urn:sha1:ad273341a452a77c4db012893a60427cf817c5bf of '#pragma pack' in included files This commit adds a new -Wpragma-pack warning. It warns in the following cases: - When a translation unit is missing terminating #pragma pack (pop) directives. - When entering an included file if the current alignment value as determined by '#pragma pack' directives is different from the default alignment value. - When leaving an included file that changed the state of the current alignment value. rdar://10184173 Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35484 llvm-svn: 308327 2016-03-10T18:53:19+00:00 Manman Ren manman.ren@gmail.com 2016-03-10T18:53:19+00:00 urn:sha1:073db02476c0ef8a84934e32b328103a5e5e2ab5 Given the following test case: typedef struct { const char *name; id field; } Test9; extern void doSomething(Test9 arg); void test9() { Test9 foo2 = {0, 0}; doSomething(foo2); } With a release compiler, we don't emit any message and silently ignore the variable "foo2". With an assert compiler, we get an assertion failure. The root cause ————————————— Back in r140457 we gave InitListChecker a verification-only mode, and will use CanUseDecl instead of DiagnoseUseOfDecl for verification-only mode. These two functions handle unavailable issues differently: In Sema::CanUseDecl, we say the decl is invalid when the Decl is unavailable and the current context is available. In Sema::DiagnoseUseOfDecl, we say the decl is usable by ignoring the return code of DiagnoseAvailabilityOfDecl So with an assert build, we will hit an assertion in diagnoseListInit assert(DiagnoseInitList.HadError() && "Inconsistent init list check result."); The fix ------------------- If we follow what is implemented in CanUseDecl and treat Decls with unavailable issues as invalid, the variable decl of “foo2” will be marked as invalid. Since unavailable checking is processed in delayed diagnostics (r197627), we will silently ignore the diagnostics when we find out that the variable decl is invalid. We add a flag "TreatUnavailableAsInvalid" for the verification-only mode. For overload resolution, we want to say decls with unavailable issues are invalid; but for everything else, we should say they are valid and emit diagnostics. Depending on the value of the flag, CanUseDecl can return different values for unavailable issues. rdar://23557300 Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15314 llvm-svn: 263149