|
Revision tags: llvmorg-21-init, llvmorg-19.1.7, llvmorg-19.1.6, llvmorg-19.1.5, llvmorg-19.1.4, llvmorg-19.1.3, llvmorg-19.1.2, llvmorg-19.1.1 |
|
| #
c57b9f5a |
| 21-Sep-2024 |
Timm Baeder <tbaeder@redhat.com> |
[clang][bytecode] Fix reporting non-constant variables in C (#109516)
We need to call FFDiag() to get the usual "invalid subexpression"
diagnostic.
|
|
Revision tags: llvmorg-19.1.0, llvmorg-19.1.0-rc4, llvmorg-19.1.0-rc3, llvmorg-19.1.0-rc2, llvmorg-19.1.0-rc1, llvmorg-20-init, llvmorg-18.1.8, llvmorg-18.1.7, llvmorg-18.1.6, llvmorg-18.1.5, llvmorg-18.1.4, llvmorg-18.1.3, llvmorg-18.1.2, llvmorg-18.1.1, llvmorg-18.1.0, llvmorg-18.1.0-rc4, llvmorg-18.1.0-rc3, llvmorg-18.1.0-rc2, llvmorg-18.1.0-rc1, llvmorg-19-init, llvmorg-17.0.6, llvmorg-17.0.5, llvmorg-17.0.4, llvmorg-17.0.3, llvmorg-17.0.2, llvmorg-17.0.1, llvmorg-17.0.0, llvmorg-17.0.0-rc4, llvmorg-17.0.0-rc3, llvmorg-17.0.0-rc2, llvmorg-17.0.0-rc1, llvmorg-18-init, llvmorg-16.0.6, llvmorg-16.0.5, llvmorg-16.0.4, llvmorg-16.0.3, llvmorg-16.0.2, llvmorg-16.0.1, llvmorg-16.0.0, llvmorg-16.0.0-rc4, llvmorg-16.0.0-rc3, llvmorg-16.0.0-rc2, llvmorg-16.0.0-rc1, llvmorg-17-init, llvmorg-15.0.7, llvmorg-15.0.6, llvmorg-15.0.5, llvmorg-15.0.4, llvmorg-15.0.3, working, llvmorg-15.0.2, llvmorg-15.0.1, llvmorg-15.0.0, llvmorg-15.0.0-rc3, llvmorg-15.0.0-rc2, llvmorg-15.0.0-rc1, llvmorg-16-init, llvmorg-14.0.6, llvmorg-14.0.5, llvmorg-14.0.4, llvmorg-14.0.3, llvmorg-14.0.2, llvmorg-14.0.1, llvmorg-14.0.0, llvmorg-14.0.0-rc4, llvmorg-14.0.0-rc3, llvmorg-14.0.0-rc2, llvmorg-14.0.0-rc1, llvmorg-15-init, llvmorg-13.0.1, llvmorg-13.0.1-rc3, llvmorg-13.0.1-rc2, llvmorg-13.0.1-rc1, llvmorg-13.0.0, llvmorg-13.0.0-rc4, llvmorg-13.0.0-rc3, llvmorg-13.0.0-rc2, llvmorg-13.0.0-rc1, llvmorg-14-init |
|
| #
98322d3e |
| 10-Jul-2021 |
Corentin Jabot <corentinjabot@gmail.com> |
Complete the implementation of P2361 Unevaluated string literals
The attributes changes were left out of Clang 17.
Attributes that used to take a string literal now accept an unevaluated
string lite
Complete the implementation of P2361 Unevaluated string literals
The attributes changes were left out of Clang 17.
Attributes that used to take a string literal now accept an unevaluated
string literal instead, which means they reject numeric escape sequences
and strings literal with an encoding prefix - but the later was already
ill-formed in most cases.
We need to know that we are going to parse an unevaluated string literal
before we do - so we can reject numeric escape sequence,
so we derive from Attrs.td which attributes parameters are expected
to be string literals.
Reviewed By: aaron.ballman
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D156237
show more ...
|
| #
874217f9 |
| 22-Jul-2023 |
Nikolas Klauser <nikolasklauser@berlin.de> |
[clang] Enable C++11-style attributes in all language modes
This also ignores and deprecates the `-fdouble-square-bracket-attributes` command line flag, which seems to not be used anywhere. At least
[clang] Enable C++11-style attributes in all language modes
This also ignores and deprecates the `-fdouble-square-bracket-attributes` command line flag, which seems to not be used anywhere. At least a code search exclusively found mentions of it in documentation: https://sourcegraph.com/search?q=context:global+-fdouble-square-bracket-attributes+-file:clang/*+-file:test/Sema/*+-file:test/Parser/*+-file:test/AST/*+-file:test/Preprocessor/*+-file:test/Misc/*+archived:yes&patternType=standard&sm=0&groupBy=repo
RFC: https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-enable-c-11-c2x-attributes-in-all-standard-modes-as-an-extension-and-remove-fdouble-square-bracket-attributes
This enables `[[]]` attributes in all C and C++ language modes without warning by default. `-Wc++-extensions` does warn. GCC has enabled this extension in all C modes since GCC 10.
Reviewed By: aaron.ballman, MaskRay
Spies: #clang-vendors, beanz, JDevlieghere, Michael137, MaskRay, sstefan1, jplehr, cfe-commits, lldb-commits, dmgreen, jdoerfert, wenlei, wlei
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D151683
show more ...
|
| #
8c7b64b5 |
| 15-Jun-2022 |
Martin Boehme <mboehme@google.com> |
[clang] Reject non-declaration C++11 attributes on declarations
For backwards compatiblity, we emit only a warning instead of an error if the
attribute is one of the existing type attributes that we
[clang] Reject non-declaration C++11 attributes on declarations
For backwards compatiblity, we emit only a warning instead of an error if the
attribute is one of the existing type attributes that we have historically
allowed to "slide" to the `DeclSpec` just as if it had been specified in GNU
syntax. (We will call these "legacy type attributes" below.)
The high-level changes that achieve this are:
- We introduce a new field `Declarator::DeclarationAttrs` (with appropriate
accessors) to store C++11 attributes occurring in the attribute-specifier-seq
at the beginning of a simple-declaration (and other similar declarations).
Previously, these attributes were placed on the `DeclSpec`, which made it
impossible to reconstruct later on whether the attributes had in fact been
placed on the decl-specifier-seq or ahead of the declaration.
- In the parser, we propgate declaration attributes and decl-specifier-seq
attributes separately until we can place them in
`Declarator::DeclarationAttrs` or `DeclSpec::Attrs`, respectively.
- In `ProcessDeclAttributes()`, in addition to processing declarator attributes,
we now also process the attributes from `Declarator::DeclarationAttrs` (except
if they are legacy type attributes).
- In `ConvertDeclSpecToType()`, in addition to processing `DeclSpec` attributes,
we also process any legacy type attributes that occur in
`Declarator::DeclarationAttrs` (and emit a warning).
- We make `ProcessDeclAttribute` emit an error if it sees any non-declaration
attributes in C++11 syntax, except in the following cases:
- If it is being called for attributes on a `DeclSpec` or `DeclaratorChunk`
- If the attribute is a legacy type attribute (in which case we only emit
a warning)
The standard justifies treating attributes at the beginning of a
simple-declaration and attributes after a declarator-id the same. Here are some
relevant parts of the standard:
- The attribute-specifier-seq at the beginning of a simple-declaration
"appertains to each of the entities declared by the declarators of the
init-declarator-list" (https://eel.is/c++draft/dcl.dcl#dcl.pre-3)
- "In the declaration for an entity, attributes appertaining to that entity can
appear at the start of the declaration and after the declarator-id for that
declaration." (https://eel.is/c++draft/dcl.dcl#dcl.pre-note-2)
- "The optional attribute-specifier-seq following a declarator-id appertains to
the entity that is declared."
(https://eel.is/c++draft/dcl.dcl#dcl.meaning.general-1)
The standard contains similar wording to that for a simple-declaration in other
similar types of declarations, for example:
- "The optional attribute-specifier-seq in a parameter-declaration appertains to
the parameter." (https://eel.is/c++draft/dcl.fct#3)
- "The optional attribute-specifier-seq in an exception-declaration appertains
to the parameter of the catch clause" (https://eel.is/c++draft/except.pre#1)
The new behavior is tested both on the newly added type attribute
`annotate_type`, for which we emit errors, and for the legacy type attribute
`address_space` (chosen somewhat randomly from the various legacy type
attributes), for which we emit warnings.
Depends On D111548
Reviewed By: aaron.ballman, rsmith
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D126061
show more ...
|
| #
665da187 |
| 15-Jun-2022 |
Martin Boehme <mboehme@google.com> |
[Clang] Add the `annotate_type` attribute
This is an analog to the `annotate` attribute but for types. The intent is to allow adding arbitrary annotations to types for use in static analysis tools.
[Clang] Add the `annotate_type` attribute
This is an analog to the `annotate` attribute but for types. The intent is to allow adding arbitrary annotations to types for use in static analysis tools.
For details, see this RFC:
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-new-attribute-annotate-type-iteration-2/61378
Reviewed By: aaron.ballman
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111548
show more ...
|