This reverts commit dfdfd306cfaf54fbc43e2d5eb36489dac3eb9976.
An issue is reported for wrong warning, this has to be reconsidered.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D157352
This fix PR37919
The below code produces -Wconstant-logical-operand for the first statement,
but not the second.
void foo(int x) {
if (x && 5) {}
if (5 && x) {}
}
Reviewed By: nickdesaulniers
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D142609
In C++17 the operand(s) of an overloaded operator are sequenced as for
the corresponding built-in operator when the overloaded operator is
called with the operator notation ([over.match.oper]p2).
Reported in PR35340.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D81330
Reviewed By: rsmith
In C++17 the postfix-expression of a call expression is sequenced before
each expression in the expression-list and any default argument.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58579
Reviewed By: rsmith
The current handling of the operators ||, && and ?: has a number of false
positive and false negative. The issues for operator || and && are:
1. We need to add sequencing regions for the LHS and RHS as is done for the
comma operator. Not doing so causes false positives in expressions like
`((a++, false) || (a++, false))` (from PR39779, see PR22197 for another
example).
2. In the current implementation when the evaluation of the LHS fails, the RHS
is added to a worklist to be processed later. This results in false negatives
in expressions like `(a && a++) + a`.
Fix these issues by introducing sequencing regions for the LHS and RHS, and by
not deferring the visitation of the RHS.
The issues with the ternary operator ?: are similar, with the added twist that
we should not warn on expressions like `(x ? y += 1 : y += 2)` since exactly
one of the 2nd and 3rd expression is going to be evaluated, but we should still
warn on expressions like `(x ? y += 1 : y += 2) = y`.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57747
Reviewed By: rsmith
where either the modification or the other access is unreachable.
This reverts r359984 (which reverted r359962). The bug in clang-tidy's
test suite exposed by the original commit was fixed in r360009.
llvm-svn: 360010
Add some tests for unsequenced operations with members and references.
For now most of it is unhandled but it shows what work needs to be done.
Also merge the tests for the C++17 sequencing rules in warn-unsequenced.cpp
since we want to make sure that the appropriate warnings are still present
in C++17 without duplicating the whole content of warn-unsequenced.cpp.
llvm-svn: 354151
Summary: In the [expr.sub] p1, we can read that for a given E1[E2], E1 is sequenced before E2.
Patch by Mateusz Janek.
Reviewers: rsmith, Rakete1111
Reviewed By: rsmith, Rakete1111
Subscribers: riccibruno, lebedev.ri, Rakete1111, hiraditya, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50766
llvm-svn: 350874
For builtin logical operators, there is a well-defined ordering of argument
evaluation. For overloaded operator of the same type, there is no argument
evaluation order, similar to other function calls. When both are present,
uninstantiated templates with an operator&& is treated as an unresolved
function call. Unresolved function calls are treated as normal function calls,
and may result in false positives when the builtin logical operator is used.
Have the unsequenced checker ignore dependent expressions to avoid this
false positive. The check also happens in template instantiations to catch
when the overloaded operator is used.
llvm-svn: 277866
before the value computation of the result. In C, this is implied by there being
a sequence point after their evaluation, and in C++, it's implied by the
side-effects being sequenced before the expressions and statements in the
function body.
llvm-svn: 185282
side-effect is not sequenced before its value computation. Also fix a
mishandling of ?: expressions where the condition is constant that was
exposed by the tests for this.
llvm-svn: 185035
unsequenced operations in the RHS. We don't compare the RHS with the rest of
the expression yet; such checks will need care to avoid diagnosing unsequenced
operations which are both in conditionally-evaluated subexpressions which
actually can't occur together, such as in '(b && ++x) + (!b && ++x)'.
llvm-svn: 172760
expressions which have undefined behavior due to multiple unsequenced
modifications or an unsequenced modification and use of a variable.
llvm-svn: 172690
