Current context set to where alias was met, not where it is declared
caused incorrect access check in case alias referenced private members
of the parent class.
This is a recommit of 6b1aa31 with a slight modification in order to fix
reported regression.
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/41693
It was reported in the PR that commit caused clang giving errors for
code previously considered valid.
This reverts commit 6b1aa319754e76366edd88e10034e0539710d946.
Current context set to where alias was met, not where it is declared
caused incorrect access check in case alias referenced private members
of the parent class.
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/41693
Reapplication of 7339c0f782d5c70e0928f8991b0c05338a90c84c with a fix
for a crash involving arrays without a size expression.
Clang supports VLAs in C++ as an extension, but we currently only warn
on their use when you pass -Wvla, -Wvla-extension, or -pedantic.
However, VLAs as they're expressed in C have been considered by WG21
and rejected, are easy to use accidentally to the surprise of users
(e.g., https://ddanilov.me/default-non-standard-features/), and they
have potential security implications beyond constant-size arrays
(https://wiki.sei.cmu.edu/confluence/display/c/ARR32-C.+Ensure+size+arguments+for+variable+length+arrays+are+in+a+valid+range).
C++ users should strongly consider using other functionality such as
std::vector instead.
This seems like sufficiently compelling evidence to warn users about
VLA use by default in C++ modes. This patch enables the -Wvla-extension
diagnostic group in C++ language modes by default, and adds the warning
group to -Wall in GNU++ language modes. The warning is still opt-in in
C language modes, where support for VLAs is somewhat less surprising to
users.
RFC: https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-diagnosing-use-of-vlas-in-c/73109
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/62836
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D156565
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
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 6542cb55a3eb115b1c3592514590a19987ffc498.
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 b7e77ff25fb2412f6ab6d6cc756666b0e2f97bd3.
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
Based on post-commit review discussion on
2bd84938470bf2e337801faafb8a67710f46429d with Richard Smith.
Other uses of forcing HasEmptyPlaceHolder to false seem OK to me -
they're all around pointer/reference types where the pointer/reference
token will appear at the rightmost side of the left side of the type
name, so they make nested types (eg: the "int" in "int *") behave as
though there is a non-empty placeholder (because the "*" is essentially
the placeholder as far as the "int" is concerned).
This was originally committed in 277623f4d5a672d707390e2c3eaf30a9eb4b075c
Reverted in f9ad1d1c775a8e264bebc15d75e0c6e5c20eefc7 due to breakages
outside of clang - lldb seems to have some strange/strong dependence on
"char [N]" versus "char[N]" when printing strings (not due to that name
appearing in DWARF, but probably due to using clang to stringify type
names) that'll need to be addressed, plus a few other odds and ends in
other subprojects (clang-tools-extra, compiler-rt, etc).
Looks like lldb has some issues with this - somehow it causes lldb to
treat a "char[N]" type as an array of chars (prints them out
individually) but a "char [N]" is printed as a string. (even though the
DWARF doesn't have this string in it - it's something to do with the
string lldb generates for itself using clang)
This reverts commit 277623f4d5a672d707390e2c3eaf30a9eb4b075c.
Based on post-commit review discussion on
2bd84938470bf2e337801faafb8a67710f46429d with Richard Smith.
Other uses of forcing HasEmptyPlaceHolder to false seem OK to me -
they're all around pointer/reference types where the pointer/reference
token will appear at the rightmost side of the left side of the type
name, so they make nested types (eg: the "int" in "int *") behave as
though there is a non-empty placeholder (because the "*" is essentially
the placeholder as far as the "int" is concerned).
template name is not visible to unqualified lookup.
In order to support this without a severe degradation in our ability to
diagnose typos in template names, this change significantly restructures
the way we handle template-id-shaped syntax for which lookup of the
template name finds nothing.
Instead of eagerly diagnosing an undeclared template name, we now form a
placeholder template-name representing a name that is known to not find
any templates. When the parser sees such a name, it attempts to
disambiguate whether we have a less-than comparison or a template-id.
Any diagnostics or typo-correction for the name are delayed until its
point of use.
The upshot should be a small improvement of our diagostic quality
overall: we now take more syntactic context into account when trying to
resolve an undeclared identifier on the left hand side of a '<'. In
fact, this works well enough that the backwards-compatible portion (for
an undeclared identifier rather than a lookup that finds functions but
no function templates) is enabled in all language modes.
llvm-svn: 360308
Summary:
The documentation for RecursiveASTVisitor::TraverseDecl states that the
Decl being traversed may be null. In fact, this is the case when a
CXXCatchStmt with no exception decl is traversed. Because the visitor
for diagnosing unexpanded parameter packs does not check for null, it
ends up crashing when it attempts to call the Decl::isParameterPack
method on a null Decl pointer.
Add a null check to prevent an ICE, and a test case that would crash
otherwise. Also, because the test requires C++ exceptions and C++14,
change the test parameters for the entire test file. (Alternatively, I
thought about adding a new test file, but went with this approach for my
own convenience.)
Co-authored-by: Andreas Molzer <andreas.molzer@gmx.de>
Co-authored-by: Mara Bos <m-ou.se@m-ou.se>
Reviewers: rsmith
Reviewed By: rsmith
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56271
llvm-svn: 350501
they're redeclarations. This is necessary in order for name lookup to correctly
find the most recent declaration of the name (which affects default template
argument lookup and cross-module merging, among other things).
llvm-svn: 275612
We treated DependentSizedArrayTypes with the same element type but
differing size expressions as equivalently canonical. This would lead
to bizarre behavior during template instantiation.
This fixes PR24212.
llvm-svn: 243093
DR18 previously forebode typedefs to be used as parameter types if they
were of type 'void'. DR577 allows 'void' to be used as a function
parameter type regardless from where it came.
llvm-svn: 201631
Set invalid type of declarator after emitting error diagnostics,
so that it won't be later considered when instantiating the template.
Added test5_inst in test/SemaCXX/condition.cpp for non-regression.
llvm-svn: 172201
defined here, but not semantically, so
new struct S {};
is always ill-formed, even if there is a struct S in scope.
We also had a couple of bugs in ParseOptionalTypeSpecifier caused by it being
under-loved (due to it only being used in a few places) so merge it into
ParseDeclarationSpecifiers with a new DeclSpecContext. To avoid regressing, this
required improving ParseDeclarationSpecifiers' diagnostics in some cases. This
also required teaching ParseSpecifierQualifierList about constexpr... which
incidentally fixes an issue where we'd allow the constexpr specifier in other
bad places.
llvm-svn: 152549
o Correct the handling of the restrictions on usage of cv-qualified and
ref-qualified function types.
o Fix a bug where such types were rejected in template type parameter default
arguments, due to such arguments not being treated as a template type arg
context.
o Remove the ExtWarn for usage of such types as template arguments; that was
a standard defect, not a GCC extension.
o Improve the wording and unify the code for diagnosing cv-qualifiers with the
code for diagnosing ref-qualifiers.
llvm-svn: 150244
