| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
suite (#123464)
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.
|
|
Fixes #90941.
Add support for ``[[msvc::noinline]]`` attribute, which is actually an
alias of ``[[clang::noinline]]``.
|
|
And replace -emit-llvm -o - with -emit-llvm-only
|
|
Conversion performed using the script at:
https://gist.github.com/nikic/98357b71fd67756b0f064c9517b62a34
These are only tests where no manual fixup was required.
|
|
This adds -no-opaque-pointers to clang tests whose output will
change when opaque pointers are enabled by default. This is
intended to be part of the migration approach described in
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/enabling-opaque-pointers-by-default/61322/9.
The patch has been produced by replacing %clang_cc1 with
%clang_cc1 -no-opaque-pointers for tests that fail with opaque
pointers enabled. Worth noting that this doesn't cover all tests,
there's a remaining ~40 tests not using %clang_cc1 that will need
a followup change.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D123115
|
|
Motivation:
```
int foo(int x, int y) { // any compiler will happily inline this function
return x / y;
}
int test(int x, int y) {
int r = 0;
[[clang::noinline]] r += foo(x, y); // for some reason we don't want any inlining here
return r;
}
```
In 2018, @kuhar proposed "Introduce per-callsite inline intrinsics" in https://reviews.llvm.org/D51200 to solve this motivation case (and many others).
This patch solves this problem with call site attribute. The implementation is "smaller" wrt approach which uses new intrinsics and thanks to https://reviews.llvm.org/D79121 (Add nomerge statement attribute to clang), we have got some basic infrastructure to deal with attrs on statements with call expressions.
GCC devs are more inclined to call attribute solution as well, as builtins are problematic for them - https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104187. But they have no patch proposal yet so.. We have free hands here.
If this approach makes sense, next future steps would be support for call site attributes for always_inline / flatten.
Reviewed By: aaron.ballman, kuhar
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D119061
|
