| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
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 reverts commit 7339c0f782d5c70e0928f8991b0c05338a90c84c.
Breaks bots:
https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/139/builds/51875
https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/164/builds/45262
|
|
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
|
|
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D150704
|
|
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
|
|
This test is bottlenecked by heavy regex use (~0.6s per FileCHeck run) with the
content that can't be further fragmented. Instead, the test body is moved into a
common .inc file and test execution has been split into four roughly equal
parts. This reduces wall time for the test from 14s to ~3.5s.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85695
|
