================
@@ -0,0 +1,256 @@
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -fblocks -fcxx-exceptions -std=c++20 -verify
%s
+// These are in a separate file because errors (e.g. incompatible attributes)
currently prevent
+// the FXAnalysis pass from running at all.
+
+// This diagnostic is re-enabled and exercised in isolation later in this file.
+#pragma clang diagnostic ignored "-Wperf-constraint-implies-noexcept"
+
+// --- CONSTRAINTS ---
+
+void nb1() [[clang::nonblocking]]
+{
+ int *pInt = new int; // expected-warning {{'nonblocking' function must
not allocate or deallocate memory}}
+ delete pInt; // expected-warning {{'nonblocking' function must not
allocate or deallocate memory}}
+}
+
+void nb2() [[clang::nonblocking]]
+{
+ static int global; // expected-warning {{'nonblocking' function must
not have static locals}}
+}
+
+void nb3() [[clang::nonblocking]]
+{
+ try {
+ throw 42; // expected-warning {{'nonblocking' function must not
throw or catch exceptions}}
+ }
+ catch (...) { // expected-warning {{'nonblocking' function must not
throw or catch exceptions}}
+ }
+}
+
----------------
Sirraide wrote:
> a narrower approach would be to note the extra context of being inside an
> initializer when a violation is generated from a constructor, and add that
> context to the diagnostic.
I think that sounds more or less like what I had in mind. The main things I was
concerned about were
1. We should compltain that an initialiser is e.g. blocking iff the constructor
in question actually executes that initialiser, and
2. *Ideally*, it should be obvious to the user—by whatever means—that the
problem is in the initaliser.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/99656
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
