In preparation of making `-Wreturn-type` default to an error (as there
is virtually no situation where you’d *want* to fall off the end of a
function that is supposed to return a value), this patch fixes tests
that have relied on this being only a warning, of which there seem
to be 3 kinds:
1. Tests which for no apparent reason have a function that triggers the
warning.
I suspect that a lot of these were on accident (or from before the
warning was introduced), since a lot of people will open issues w/ their
problematic code in the `main` function (which is the one case where you
don’t need to return from a non-void function, after all...), which
someone will then copy, possibly into a namespace, possibly renaming it,
the end result of that being that you end up w/ something that
definitely is not `main` anymore, but which still is declared as
returning `int`, and which still has no return statement (another reason
why I think this might apply to a lot of these is because usually the
actual return type of such problematic functions is quite literally
`int`).
A lot of these are really old tests that don’t use `-verify`, which is
why no-one noticed or had to care about the extra warning that was
already being emitted by them until now.
2. Tests which test either `-Wreturn-type`, `[[noreturn]]`, or what
codegen and sanitisers do whenever you do fall off the end of a
function.
3. Tests where I struggle to figure out what is even being tested
(usually because they’re Objective-C tests, and I don’t know
Objective-C), whether falling off the end of a function matters in the
first place, and tests where actually spelling out an expression to
return would be rather cumbersome (e.g. matrix types currently don’t
support list initialisation, so I can’t write e.g. `return {}`).
For tests that fall into categories 2 and 3, I just added
`-Wno-error=return-type` to the `RUN` lines and called it a day. This
was especially necessary for the former since `-Wreturn-type` is an
analysis-based warning, meaning that it is currently impossible to test
for more than one occurrence of it in the same compilation if it
defaults to an error since the analysis pass is skipped for subsequent
functions as soon as an error is emitted.
I’ve also added `-Werror=return-type` to a few tests that I had already
updated as this patch was previously already making the warning an error
by default, but we’ve decided to split that into two patches instead.
C89 had a questionable feature where the compiler would implicitly
declare a function that the user called but was never previously
declared. The resulting function would be globally declared as
extern int func(); -- a function without a prototype which accepts zero
or more arguments.
C99 removed support for this questionable feature due to severe
security concerns. However, there was no deprecation period; C89 had
the feature, C99 didn't. So Clang (and GCC) both supported the
functionality as an extension in C99 and later modes.
C2x no longer supports that function signature as it now requires all
functions to have a prototype, and given the known security issues with
the feature, continuing to support it as an extension is not tenable.
This patch changes the diagnostic behavior for the
-Wimplicit-function-declaration warning group depending on the language
mode in effect. We continue to warn by default in C89 mode (due to the
feature being dangerous to use). However, because this feature will not
be supported in C2x mode, we've diagnosed it as being invalid for so
long, the security concerns with the feature, and the trivial
workaround for users (declare the function), we now default the
extension warning to an error in C99-C17 mode. This still gives users
an easy workaround if they are extensively using the extension in those
modes (they can disable the warning or use -Wno-error to downgrade the
error), but the new diagnostic makes it more clear that this feature is
not supported and should be avoided. In C2x mode, we no longer allow an
implicit function to be defined and treat the situation the same as any
other lookup failure.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D122983
