@@ -569,7 +573,8 @@ class Expr : public ValueStmt {
/// Note: This does not perform the implicit conversions required by C++11
/// [expr.const]p5.
bool isCXX11ConstantExpr(const ASTContext &Ctx, APValue *Result = nullptr,
- SourceLocation *Loc =
cwarner-8702 wrote:
> There should definitely be a test in the clang side of things to ensure
> correct handling of the Expr::getIntegerConstantExpr method with this new
> parameter
100% agree. What would be a good way to verify handling of it when the flag
shouldn't the compiled output?
ht
https://github.com/cwarner-8702 created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/101073
Expanding on [the previous
PR](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/98352), this is an attempt to
remove the limitation that the option can only apply to signed integer types.
Because unsigned types
@@ -49,8 +49,7 @@ Options
If the multiplication operands are compile-time constants (like literals or
are ``constexpr``) and fit within the source expression type, do not emit a
- diagnostic or suggested fix. Only considers expressions where the source
- expression
https://github.com/cwarner-8702 updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/101073
>From 39208a7b73893d1eef2078b3d212c92eb58e4457 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Chris Warner
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 11:22:39 -0700
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [clang-tidy] bugprone-implicit-widening ignores unsigned
https://github.com/cwarner-8702 created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90603
The clang-query tool has the ability to execute or pre-load queries from a file
when the tool is launched, but doesn't have the ability to do the same from the
interactive REPL prompt. Because the prompt a
https://github.com/cwarner-8702 updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/101073
>From 24f52fbfb9117a6498769cebdc7b09ecbd7e019e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Chris Warner
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 11:22:39 -0700
Subject: [PATCH 1/5] [clang-tidy] bugprone-implicit-widening ignores unsigned
https://github.com/cwarner-8702 created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/98352
Add an option to the `bugprone-implicit-widening-of-multiplication-result`
clang-tidy checker to suppress warnings when the expression is made up of all
compile-time constants (literals, `constexpr` values
cwarner-8702 wrote:
@AaronBallman @njames93 Could you review?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/98352
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ Options
If the multiplication operands are compile-time constants (like literals or
are ``constexpr``) and fit within the source expression type, do not emit a
diagnostic or suggested fix. Only considers expressions where the source
- expression is
cwarner-8702 wrote:
> Actually it's oposite. Simply when -Winteger-overflow is enabled, then
> IgnoreConstantIntExpr can be set to true, to avoid duplicated warnings. For
> me IgnoreConstantIntExpr should even by ON by default.
Sorry, I'm still struggling to see the connection. Maybe I'm ge
https://github.com/cwarner-8702 updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90603
>From 9b1fe59633b5404281b5b9fd754b8a81fae411d0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Chris Warner
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 10:48:44 -0700
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] Load queries and matchers from file during REPL cycle
Th
@@ -281,5 +282,26 @@ const QueryKind SetQueryKind::value;
const QueryKind SetQueryKind::value;
#endif
+bool FileQuery::run(llvm::raw_ostream &OS, QuerySession &QS) const {
+ auto Buffer = llvm::MemoryBuffer::getFile(StringRef{File}.trim());
+ if (!Buffer) {
+if (Prefix.h
cwarner-8702 wrote:
@PiotrZSL Ok. I was hoping that since this new option is _only_ used by the
`clang-tidy` check, that it's tests would suffice. But I would also like to
have more assurance than that.
I need some help figuring out how to go about testing the change to the `Expr`
class i
https://github.com/cwarner-8702 updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/101073
>From 39208a7b73893d1eef2078b3d212c92eb58e4457 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Chris Warner
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 11:22:39 -0700
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] [clang-tidy] bugprone-implicit-widening ignores unsigned
https://github.com/cwarner-8702 updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/101073
>From 24f52fbfb9117a6498769cebdc7b09ecbd7e019e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Chris Warner
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 11:22:39 -0700
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] [clang-tidy] bugprone-implicit-widening ignores unsigned
https://github.com/cwarner-8702 updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/101073
>From 24f52fbfb9117a6498769cebdc7b09ecbd7e019e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Chris Warner
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 11:22:39 -0700
Subject: [PATCH 1/5] [clang-tidy] bugprone-implicit-widening ignores unsigned
cwarner-8702 wrote:
@5chmidti I agree. Do you know how I can get the attention of someone more
familiar with clang internals, or who that might be?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/101073
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.o
cwarner-8702 wrote:
Ping
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/101073
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
cwarner-8702 wrote:
Thanks @AaronBallman!
> I don't think we want constant expression evaluation to fail based on an
> input parameter.
It will already fail if the inputs as signed and expression overflows, so this
seems like a case that all callers will have to deal with anyway.
> I think a
https://github.com/cwarner-8702 updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/101073
>From 24f52fbfb9117a6498769cebdc7b09ecbd7e019e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Chris Warner
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 11:22:39 -0700
Subject: [PATCH 1/6] [clang-tidy] bugprone-implicit-widening ignores unsigned
https://github.com/cwarner-8702 updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/101073
>From 24f52fbfb9117a6498769cebdc7b09ecbd7e019e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Chris Warner
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 11:22:39 -0700
Subject: [PATCH 1/5] [clang-tidy] bugprone-implicit-widening ignores unsigned
cwarner-8702 wrote:
@EugeneZelenko @PiotrZSL @njames93 @SimplyDanny @5chmidti @HerrCai0907
@AaronBallman
Sorry for mass tagging folks, but this PR has been open for nearly 8 weeks with
barely any feedback, and is starting to bit rot. I'd really appreciate some
feedback, even if it's "this is
23 matches
Mail list logo
