| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Summary:
Currently when a function annotated with __attribute__((nonnull)) is called in an unevaluated context with a null argument a -Wnonnull warning is emitted.
This warning seems like a false positive unless the call expression is potentially evaluated. Change this behavior so that the non-null warnings use DiagRuntimeBehavior so they wont emit when they won't be evaluated.
Reviewers: majnemer, rsmith
Subscribers: mclow.lists, cfe-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13408
llvm-svn: 249787
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
_Uppercase_underscored
Addresses a conflict with glibc's __nonnull macro by renaming the type
nullability qualifiers as follows:
__nonnull -> _Nonnull
__nullable -> _Nullable
__null_unspecified -> _Null_unspecified
This is the major part of rdar://problem/21530726, but does not yet
provide the Darwin-specific behavior for the old names.
llvm-svn: 240596
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This generalizes the checking of null arguments to also work with
values of pointer-to-function, reference-to-function, and block
pointer type, using the nullability information within the underling
function prototype to extend non-null checking, and diagnoses returns
of 'nil' within a function with a __nonnull return type.
Note that we don't warn about nil returns from Objective-C methods,
because it's common for Objective-C methods to mimic the nil-swallowing
behavior of the receiver by checking ostensibly non-null parameters
and returning nil from otherwise non-null methods in that
case.
It also diagnoses (via a separate flag) conversions from nullable to
nonnull pointers. It's a separate flag because this warning can be noisy.
llvm-svn: 240153
|
|
|
Introduces the type specifiers __nonnull, __nullable, and
__null_unspecified that describe the nullability of the pointer type
to which the specifier appertains. Nullability type specifiers improve
on the existing nonnull attributes in a few ways:
- They apply to types, so one can represent a pointer to a non-null
pointer, use them in function pointer types, etc.
- As type specifiers, they are syntactically more lightweight than
__attribute__s or [[attribute]]s.
- They can express both the notion of 'should never be null' and
also 'it makes sense for this to be null', and therefore can more
easily catch errors of omission where one forgot to annotate the
nullability of a particular pointer (this will come in a subsequent
patch).
Nullability type specifiers are maintained as type sugar, and
therefore have no effect on mangling, encoding, overloading,
etc. Nonetheless, they will be used for warnings about, e.g., passing
'null' to a method that does not accept it.
This is the C/C++ part of rdar://problem/18868820.
llvm-svn: 240146
|
