| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The first attempt, rL315614 was reverted because one libcxx
test broke, and i did not know at the time how to deal with it.
Summary:
Currently, clang only diagnoses completely out-of-range comparisons (e.g. `char` and constant `300`),
and comparisons of unsigned and `0`. But gcc also does diagnose the comparisons with the
`std::numeric_limits<>::max()` / `std::numeric_limits<>::min()` so to speak
Finally Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34147
Continuation of https://reviews.llvm.org/D37565
Reviewers: rjmccall, rsmith, aaron.ballman
Reviewed By: rsmith
Subscribers: rtrieu, jroelofs, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38101
llvm-svn: 315875
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This reverts r315614,r315615,r315621,r315622
Breaks http://bb9.pgr.jp/#/builders/20/builds/59
/home/bb9/bootstrap-clang-libcxx-lld-i686-linux/llvm-project/libcxx/test/std/experimental/filesystem/fs.op.funcs/fs.op.last_write_time/last_write_time.pass.cpp:95:17: error: comparison 'long long' > 9223372036854775807 is always false [-Werror,-Wtautological-constant-compare]
if (max_sec > Lim::max()) return false;
~~~~~~~ ^ ~~~~~~~~~~
/home/bb9/bootstrap-clang-libcxx-lld-i686-linux/llvm-project/libcxx/test/std/experimental/filesystem/fs.op.funcs/fs.op.last_write_time/last_write_time.pass.cpp:124:13: error: comparison 'long long' < -9223372036854775808 is always false [-Werror,-Wtautological-constant-compare]
if (sec < Lim::min() || sec > Lim::max()) return false;
~~~ ^ ~~~~~~~~~~
/home/bb9/bootstrap-clang-libcxx-lld-i686-linux/llvm-project/libcxx/test/std/experimental/filesystem/fs.op.funcs/fs.op.last_write_time/last_write_time.pass.cpp:124:33: error: comparison 'long long' > 9223372036854775807 is always false [-Werror,-Wtautological-constant-compare]
if (sec < Lim::min() || sec > Lim::max()) return false;
~~~ ^ ~~~~~~~~~~
3 errors generated.
--
I'm not yet sure what is the proper fix.
llvm-svn: 315631
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Summary:
Currently, clang only diagnoses completely out-of-range comparisons (e.g. `char` and constant `300`),
and comparisons of unsigned and `0`. But gcc also does diagnose the comparisons with the
`std::numeric_limits<>::max()` / `std::numeric_limits<>::min()` so to speak
Finally Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34147
Continuation of https://reviews.llvm.org/D37565
Reviewers: rjmccall, rsmith, aaron.ballman
Reviewed By: rsmith
Subscribers: rtrieu, jroelofs, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38101
llvm-svn: 315614
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Summary:
This is a first half(?) of a fix for the following bug:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34147 (gcc -Wtype-limits)
GCC's -Wtype-limits does warn on comparison of unsigned value
with signed zero (as in, with 0), but clang only warns if the
zero is unsigned (i.e. 0U).
Also, be careful not to double-warn, or falsely warn on
comparison of signed/fp variable and signed 0.
Yes, all these testcases are needed.
Testing: $ ninja check-clang-sema check-clang-semacxx
Also, no new warnings for clang stage-2 build.
Reviewers: rjmccall, rsmith, aaron.ballman
Reviewed By: rjmccall
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37565
llvm-svn: 312750
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
The approach r183084 took was wrong, back it out.
llvm-svn: 183575
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In some cases, clang applies the C++ rules for computing the range of a
value when said value is an enum.
Instead, apply C semantics when in C mode.
llvm-svn: 183084
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Richard's comments. // rdar://12202422
llvm-svn: 164316
|
|
|
integral expression have the obvious result.
Patch reviewed by John McCall off line.
// rdar://12202422
llvm-svn: 164143
|
