I'm trying to remove unused options from the `Analyses.def` file, then
merge the rest of the useful options into the `AnalyzerOptions.def`.
Then make sure one can set these by an `-analyzer-config XXX=YYY` style
flag.
Then surface the `-analyzer-config` to the `clang` frontend;
After all of this, we can pursue the tablegen approach described
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-tablegen-clang-static-analyzer-engine-options-for-better-documentation/61488
In this patch, I'm proposing flag deprecations.
We should support deprecated analyzer flags for exactly one release. In
this case I'm planning to drop this flag in `clang-16`.
In the clang frontend, now we won't pass this option to the cc1
frontend, rather emit a warning diagnostic reminding the users about
this deprecated flag, which will be turned into error in clang-16.
Unfortunately, I had to remove all the tests referring to this flag,
causing a mass change. I've also added a test for checking this warning.
I've seen that `scan-build` also uses this flag, but I think we should
remove that part only after we turn this into a hard error.
Reviewed By: martong
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D126215
This reverts commit d50d9946d1d7e5f20881f0bc71fbd025040b1c96.
Broke check-clang, see comments on https://reviews.llvm.org/D126067
Also revert dependent change "[analyzer] Deprecate the unused 'analyzer-opt-analyze-nested-blocks' cc1 flag"
This reverts commit 07b4a6d0461fe64e10d30029ed3d598e49ca3810.
Also revert "[analyzer] Fix buildbots after introducing a new frontend warning"
This reverts commit 90374df15ddc58d823ca42326a76f58e748f20eb.
(See https://reviews.llvm.org/rG90374df15ddc58d823ca42326a76f58e748f20eb)
I'm trying to remove unused options from the `Analyses.def` file, then
merge the rest of the useful options into the `AnalyzerOptions.def`.
Then make sure one can set these by an `-analyzer-config XXX=YYY` style
flag.
Then surface the `-analyzer-config` to the `clang` frontend;
After all of this, we can pursue the tablegen approach described
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-tablegen-clang-static-analyzer-engine-options-for-better-documentation/61488
In this patch, I'm proposing flag deprecations.
We should support deprecated analyzer flags for exactly one release. In
this case I'm planning to drop this flag in `clang-16`.
In the clang frontend, now we won't pass this option to the cc1
frontend, rather emit a warning diagnostic reminding the users about
this deprecated flag, which will be turned into error in clang-16.
Unfortunately, I had to remove all the tests referring to this flag,
causing a mass change. I've also added a test for checking this warning.
I've seen that `scan-build` also uses this flag, but I think we should
remove that part only after we turn this into a hard error.
Reviewed By: martong
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D126215
without prototypes. This patch converts the function signatures to have
a prototype for the situations where the test is not specific to K&R C
declarations. e.g.,
void func();
becomes
void func(void);
This is the ninth batch of tests being updated (there are a
significant number of other tests left to be updated).
In Objective-C, method calls with nil receivers are essentially no-ops. They
do not fault (although the returned value may be garbage depending on the
declared return type and architecture). Programmers are aware of this
behavior and will complain about a false alarm when the analyzer
diagnoses API violations for method calls when the receiver is known to
be nil.
Rather than require each individual checker to be aware of this behavior
and suppress a warning when the receiver is nil, this commit
changes ExprEngineObjC so that VisitObjCMessage skips calling checker
pre/post handlers when the receiver is definitely nil. Instead, it adds a
new event, ObjCMessageNil, that is only called in that case.
The CallAndMessageChecker explicitly cares about this case, so I've changed it
to add a callback for ObjCMessageNil and moved the logic in PreObjCMessage
that handles nil receivers to the new callback.
rdar://problem/18092611
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12123
llvm-svn: 247653
