================
@@ -202,6 +202,43 @@ class SemaPPCallbacks : public PPCallbacks {
break;
}
}
+ void PragmaDiagnostic(SourceLocation Loc, StringRef Namespace,
+ diag::Severity Mapping, StringRef Str) override {
+ // If one of the analysis-based diagnostics was enabled while processing
+ // a function, we want to note it in the analysis-based warnings so they
+ // can be run at the end of the function body even if the analysis warnings
+ // are disabled at that point.
+ SmallVector<diag::kind, 256> GroupDiags;
+ diag::Flavor Flavor =
+ Str[1] == 'W' ? diag::Flavor::WarningOrError : diag::Flavor::Remark;
+ StringRef Group = Str.substr(2);
+
+ if (S->PP.getDiagnostics().getDiagnosticIDs()->getDiagnosticsInGroup(
+ Flavor, Group, GroupDiags))
+ return;
+
+ for (diag::kind K : GroupDiags) {
+ // Note: the cases in this switch should be kept in sync with the
+ // diagnostics in AnalysisBasedWarnings::getPolicyInEffectAt().
+ AnalysisBasedWarnings::Policy &Override =
+ S->AnalysisWarnings.getPolicyOverrides();
+ switch (K) {
+ default: break;
----------------
haoNoQ wrote:
So every new analysis-based warning needs to be added to this list right? How
weird are the consequences of forgetting it?
It might be a good idea to make a unified list of analysis-based warnings. (Or
like, make it a flag in `Diagnostic...Kinds.td`.) Then it may be possible to
build a runtime assertion to confirm that as long as
`AnalysisBasedWarnings::IssueWarnings()` is on the stack, all warnings emitted
by clang are on that list.
(Probably out of scope for this patch. Sounds like a lot of work. There could
be easier ways to check this. Could also be too restrictive in practice.)
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/136323
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
