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
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
Summary:
-fno-exceptions does not implicitly attach a nothrow specifier to every operator
new. Even in this mode, non-nothrow new must not return a null pointer. Failure
to allocate memory can be signalled by other means, or just by killing the
program. This behaviour is consistent with the compiler - even with
-fno-exceptions, the generated code never tests for null (and would segfault if
the opeator actually happened to return null).
Reviewers: jordan_rose
CC: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D1528
llvm-svn: 189452
This is actually required by the C++ standard in
[basic.stc.dynamic.allocation]p3:
If an allocation function declared with a non-throwing
exception-specification fails to allocate storage, it shall return a
null pointer. Any other allocation function that fails to allocate
storage shall indicate failure only by throwing an exception of a type
that would match a handler of type std::bad_alloc.
We don't bother checking for the specific exception type, but just go off
the operator new prototype. This should help with a certain class of lazy
initalization false positives.
<rdar://problem/12115221>
llvm-svn: 166363
Balazs Benics