This introduces support for nullptr and nullptr_t in C2x mode. The
proposal accepted by WG14 is:
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3042.htm
Note, there are quite a few incompatibilities with the C++ feature in
some of the edge cases of this feature. Therefore, there are some FIXME
comments in tests for testing behavior that might change after WG14 has
resolved national body comments (a process we've not yet started). So
this implementation might change slightly depending on the resolution
of comments. This is called out explicitly in the release notes as
well.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D135099
This implements WG14 N2927 and WG14 N2930, which together define the
feature for typeof and typeof_unqual, which get the type of their
argument as either fully qualified or fully unqualified. The argument
to either operator is either a type name or an expression. If given a
type name, the type information is pulled directly from the given name.
If given an expression, the type information is pulled from the
expression. Recursive use of these operators is allowed and has the
expected behavior (the innermost operator is resolved to a type, and
that's used to resolve the next layer of typeof specifier, until a
fully resolved type is determined.
Note, we already supported typeof in GNU mode as a non-conforming
extension and we are *not* exposing typeof_unqual as a non-conforming
extension in that mode, nor are we exposing typeof or typeof_unqual as
a nonconforming extension in other language modes. The GNU variant of
typeof supports a form where the parentheses are elided from the
operator when given an expression (e.g., typeof 0 i = 12;). When in C2x
mode, we do not support this extension.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D134286
Previously we only have an extension that warn void pointer deferencing
in C++, but for C we did nothing.
C2x 6.5.3.2p4 says The unary * operator denotes indirection. If it points
to an object, the result is an lvalue designating the object. However, there
is no way to form an lvalue designating an object of an incomplete type as
6.3.2.1p1 says "an lvalue is an expression (with an object type other than
void)", so the behavior is undefined.
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/53631
Signed-off-by: Jun Zhang <jun@junz.org>
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D134461
We would diagnose use of `long long` as an extension in C89 and C++98
modes when the user spelled the type `long long` or used the `LL`
literal suffix, but failed to diagnose when the literal had no suffix
but required a `long long` to represent the value.
This patch rewords the static assert diagnostic output. Failing a
_Static_assert in C should not report that static_assert failed. This
changes the wording to be more like GCC and uses "static assertion"
when possible instead of hard coding the name. This also changes some
instances of 'static_assert' to instead be based on the token in the
source code.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129048
Clang has traditionally allowed C programs to implicitly convert
integers to pointers and pointers to integers, despite it not being
valid to do so except under special circumstances (like converting the
integer 0, which is the null pointer constant, to a pointer). In C89,
this would result in undefined behavior per 3.3.4, and in C99 this rule
was strengthened to be a constraint violation instead. Constraint
violations are most often handled as an error.
This patch changes the warning to default to an error in all C modes
(it is already an error in C++). This gives us better security posture
by calling out potential programmer mistakes in code but still allows
users who need this behavior to use -Wno-error=int-conversion to retain
the warning behavior, or -Wno-int-conversion to silence the diagnostic
entirely.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129881
Looks like we again are going to have problems with libcxx tests that
are overly specific in their dependency on clang's diagnostics.
This reverts commit 6542cb55a3.
This patch is basically the rewording of the static assert statement's
output(error) on screen after failing. Failing a _Static_assert in C
should not report that static_assert failed. It’d probably be better to
reword the diagnostic to be more like GCC and say “static assertion”
failed in both C and C++.
consider a c file having code
_Static_assert(0, "oh no!");
In clang the output is like:
<source>:1:1: error: static_assert failed: oh no!
_Static_assert(0, "oh no!");
^ ~
1 error generated.
Compiler returned: 1
Thus here the "static_assert" is not much good, it will be better to
reword it to the "static assertion failed" to more generic. as the gcc
prints as:
<source>:1:1: error: static assertion failed: "oh no!"
1 | _Static_assert(0, "oh no!");
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Compiler returned: 1
The above can also be seen here. This patch is about rewording
the static_assert to static assertion.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129048
This reverts commit b7e77ff25f.
Reason: Broke sanitizer builds bots + libcxx. 'static assertion
expression is not an integral constant expression'. More details
available in the Phabricator review: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129048
This patch rewords the static assert diagnostic output. Failing a
_Static_assert in C should not report that static_assert failed. This
changes the wording to be more like GCC and uses "static assertion"
when possible instead of hard coding the name. This also changes some
instances of 'static_assert' to instead be based on the token in the
source code.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129048
There is a failing bot:
http://45.33.8.238/macm1/40002/step_7.txt
It looks to be failing because of a regex and how it handles whitespace,
so modifying the CHECK line slightly to account for that.
Display 'static_assert failed: message' instead of
'static_assert failed "message"' to be consistent
with other implementations and be slightly more
readable.
Reviewed By: #libc, aaron.ballman, philnik, Mordante
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D128844
Instead of dumping the string literal (which
quotes it and escape every non-ascii symbol),
we can use the content of the string when it is a
8 byte string.
Wide, UTF-8/UTF-16/32 strings are still completely
escaped, until we clarify how these entities should
behave (cf https://wg21.link/p2361).
`FormatDiagnostic` is modified to escape
non printable characters and invalid UTF-8.
This ensures that unicode characters, spaces and new
lines are properly rendered in static messages.
This make clang more consistent with other implementation
and fixes this tweet
https://twitter.com/jfbastien/status/1298307325443231744 :)
Of note, `PaddingChecker` did print out new lines that were
later removed by the diagnostic printing code.
To be consistent with its tests, the new lines are removed
from the diagnostic.
Unicode tables updated to both use the Unicode definitions
and the Unicode 14.0 data.
U+00AD SOFT HYPHEN is still considered a print character
to match existing practices in terminals, in addition of
being considered a formatting character as per Unicode.
Reviewed By: aaron.ballman, #clang-language-wg
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108469
This mostly finishes the DRs for C89, though there are still a few
outliers which remain. It also corrects some of the statuses of DRs
where it's not clear if it was fully resolved by the committee or not.
As a drive-by, it also adds -fsyntax-only to the tests which are
verifying diagnostic results. This was previously missed by accident.
This adds new files to track DRs 100-199 and 400-499, but the file
contents are still a work in progress. It also updates the associated
status in the DR tracking page.
Post-commit feedback on https://reviews.llvm.org/D122895 pointed out
that the diagnostic wording for some code was using "declaration" in a
confusing way, such as:
int foo(); // warning: a function declaration without a prototype is deprecated in all versions of C and is not supported in C2x
int foo(int arg) { // warning: a function declaration without a prototype is deprecated in all versions of C and is not supported in C2x
return 5;
}
And that we had other minor issues with the diagnostics being somewhat
confusing.
This patch addresses the confusion by reworking the implementation to
be a bit more simple and a bit less chatty. Specifically, it changes
the warning and note diagnostics to be able to specify "declaration" or
"definition" as appropriate, and it changes the function merging logic
so that the function without a prototype is always what gets warned on,
and the function with a prototype is sometimes what gets noted.
Additionally, when diagnosing a K&R C definition that is preceded by a
function without a prototype, we don't note the prior declaration, we
warn on it because it will also be changing behavior in C2x.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D125814
This starts to fill out the C DR status page with information
determined from tests. It also starts to add some test coverage for the
DRs we can add tests for (some are difficult as not all C DRs involve
questions about code and some DRs are about the behavior of linking
multiple TUs together).
Note: there is currently no automation for filling out the HTML page
from test coverage like there is for the C++ DRs, but this commit
attempts to use a similar comment style in case we want to add such a
script in the future.
