It was previously reverted by 8406839d19.
---
This flag was introduced by
6818991d71
commit 6818991d71
Author: Ted Kremenek <kremenek@apple.com>
Date: Mon Dec 7 22:06:12 2009 +0000
Add clang-cc option '-analyzer-opt-analyze-nested-blocks' to treat
block literals as an entry point for analyzer checks.
The last reference was removed by this commit:
5c32dfc5fb
commit 5c32dfc5fb
Author: Anna Zaks <ganna@apple.com>
Date: Fri Dec 21 01:19:15 2012 +0000
[analyzer] Add blocks and ObjC messages to the call graph.
This paves the road for constructing a better function dependency graph.
If we analyze a function before the functions it calls and inlines,
there is more opportunity for optimization.
Note, we add call edges to the called methods that correspond to
function definitions (declarations with bodies).
Consequently, we should remove this dead flag.
However, this arises a couple of burning questions.
- Should the `cc1` frontend still accept this flag - to keep
tools/users passing this flag directly to `cc1` (which is unsupported,
unadvertised) working.
- If we should remain backward compatible, how long?
- How can we get rid of deprecated and obsolete flags at some point?
Reviewed By: martong
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D126067
This flag was introduced by
6818991d71
commit 6818991d71
Author: Ted Kremenek <kremenek@apple.com>
Date: Mon Dec 7 22:06:12 2009 +0000
Add clang-cc option '-analyzer-opt-analyze-nested-blocks' to treat
block literals as an entry point for analyzer checks.
The last reference was removed by this commit:
5c32dfc5fb
commit 5c32dfc5fb
Author: Anna Zaks <ganna@apple.com>
Date: Fri Dec 21 01:19:15 2012 +0000
[analyzer] Add blocks and ObjC messages to the call graph.
This paves the road for constructing a better function dependency graph.
If we analyze a function before the functions it calls and inlines,
there is more opportunity for optimization.
Note, we add call edges to the called methods that correspond to
function definitions (declarations with bodies).
Consequently, we should remove this dead flag.
However, this arises a couple of burning questions.
- Should the `cc1` frontend still accept this flag - to keep
tools/users passing this flag directly to `cc1` (which is unsupported,
unadvertised) working.
- If we should remain backward compatible, how long?
- How can we get rid of deprecated and obsolete flags at some point?
Reviewed By: martong
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D126067
A significant number of our tests in C accidentally use functions
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 eighth batch of tests being updated (there are a
significant number of other tests left to be updated).
The checker marks the locations where the analyzer creates sinks. However, it
can happen that the sink was created because of a loop which does not contain
condition statement, only breaks in the body. The exhausted block is the block
which should contain the condition but empty, in this case.
This change only emits this marking in order to avoid the undefined behavior.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42266
llvm-svn: 325693
This patch was submitted to the list for review and didn't receive a LGTM.
(In fact one explicit objection and one query were raised.)
This reverts commit r197295.
llvm-svn: 197299
Previously, a line like
// expected-error-re {{foo}}
treats the entirety of foo as a regex. This is inconvenient when matching type
names containing regex characters. For example, to match
"void *(class test8::A::*)(void)" inside such a regex, one would have to type
"void \*\(class test8::A::\*\)\(void\)".
This patch changes the semantics of expected-error-re to only treat the parts
of the directive wrapped in double curly braces as regexes. This avoids the
escaping problem and leads to nicer patterns for those cases; see e.g. the
change to test/Sema/format-strings-scanf.c.
(The balanced search for closing }} of a directive also makes us handle the
full directive in test\SemaCXX\constexpr-printing.cpp:41 and :53.)
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2388
llvm-svn: 197092
We were failing to match the output line, which led to us collecting no
stats at all, which led to a divide-by-zero error.
Fixes PR15510.
llvm-svn: 177084
Balazs Benics