[clang] [attributes][analyzer] Generalize [[clang::suppress]] to declarations. (PR #80371)
haoNoQ wrote: Yes I like this perspective: "Schrödinger's need-for-pre-commit-approval" isn't a great way to communicate I'll be more clear in the future. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/80371 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[clang] [attributes][analyzer] Generalize [[clang::suppress]] to declarations. (PR #80371)
dwblaikie wrote: Commit without precommit review is fine, especially from a code owner - if you only wanted the PR for automated precommit checking, you can add the `skip-precommit-approval` to indicate that the PR isn't intended for precommit review. But, yeah, otherwise it's good that if something /is/ sent for review, that it's not committed until it is reviewed. (code owners/domain experts sometimes get into the niche where this gets a bit fuzzy and it's "here's an idea I had, anyone got better ones/thoughts on this, otherwise I'll go ahead with it" - but yeah, usually the simplest way to deal with that is to have someone else you were asking say "yeah, sounds OK, I don't have any particularly better ideas about how to do this", etc) https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/80371 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[clang] [attributes][analyzer] Generalize [[clang::suppress]] to declarations. (PR #80371)
erichkeane wrote: > Ok gotcha thanks! In any case, I'll do my best to handle this more gracefully > in the future. Your advice is always appreciated! Perfect! I'll try to be better about this in the future as well. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/80371 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[clang] [attributes][analyzer] Generalize [[clang::suppress]] to declarations. (PR #80371)
haoNoQ wrote: Ok gotcha thanks! In any case, I'll do my best to handle this more gracefully in the future. Your advice is always appreciated! https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/80371 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[clang] [attributes][analyzer] Generalize [[clang::suppress]] to declarations. (PR #80371)
erichkeane wrote: > Hmm, no, I landed it because I made an assumption that there's simply not > that much interest in this work (I'm quite depressed about this in general > lately) so as a code owner I just made a call that it's probably good enough > to go and rely on post-commit review. Now that you bring this up, it does > sound a lot like I should get myself out of this mindset and at least ping > people first. Especially Erich who I specifically invited as the code owner > of clang attributes. Absolutely my bad. I definitely see how this isn't great > moving forward and I will do better from now on. Should I also revert and > give you folks time to properly review and course-correct me? I hadn't noticed that you were the Analysis code owner. I don't really see anything in the Clang stuff (which IS attributes and my perview) that require a revert. Sorry for letting this drop off my backlog, I did one review on it at one point, then for some reason didn't come back to it. A ping would have been appreciated (for next time), but no need to revert this time. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/80371 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[clang] [attributes][analyzer] Generalize [[clang::suppress]] to declarations. (PR #80371)
haoNoQ wrote: Hmm, no, I landed it because I made an assumption that there's simply not that much interest in this work (I'm quite depressed about this in general lately) so as a code owner I just made a call that it's probably good enough to go and rely on post-commit review. Now that you bring this up, it does sound a lot like I should get myself out of this mindset and at least ping people first. Especially Erich who I specifically invited as the code owner of clang attributes. Absolutely my bad. I definitely see how this isn't great moving forward and I will do better from now on. Should I also revert and give you folks time to properly review and course-correct me? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/80371 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[clang] [attributes][analyzer] Generalize [[clang::suppress]] to declarations. (PR #80371)
erichkeane wrote: > did I miss something - it looks like this was committed without approval? It looks that way to me @haoNoQ : Did you commit this instead of something else? Can you revert this until we get approval? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/80371 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[clang] [attributes][analyzer] Generalize [[clang::suppress]] to declarations. (PR #80371)
dwblaikie wrote: did I miss something - it looks like this was committed without approval? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/80371 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[clang] [attributes][analyzer] Generalize [[clang::suppress]] to declarations. (PR #80371)
https://github.com/haoNoQ closed https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/80371 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[clang] [attributes][analyzer] Generalize [[clang::suppress]] to declarations. (PR #80371)
haoNoQ wrote: Ok I'll try to land! https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/80371 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[clang] [attributes][analyzer] Generalize [[clang::suppress]] to declarations. (PR #80371)
@@ -147,6 +147,20 @@ bool BugSuppression::isSuppressed(const
PathDiagnosticLocation ,
// done as well as perform a lot of work we'll never need.
// Gladly, none of our on-by-default checkers currently need it.
DeclWithIssue = ACtx.getTranslationUnitDecl();
+ } else {
+// This is the fast path. However, we should still consider the topmost
+// declaration that isn't TranslationUnitDecl, because we should respect
+// attributes on the entire declaration chain.
+while (true) {
haoNoQ wrote:
This is, uh, a somewhat premature performance optimization. I think I want to
get rid of it, as discussed in #79398 (it's incorrect as well), but it probably
requires a separate discussion.
The static analyzer normally always takes the fast path as every single
"supported" checker fills in the data correctly.
This isn't just about scanning the TU *here* for discovering suppressed ranges,
it's more about the fact that the static analyzer is so careful about not
analyzing non-user code that normally it doesn't even deserialize PCHs if they
aren't directly required for analysis. This is demonstrated by the lovely test
case in
[`clang/test/Analysis/check-deserialization.cpp`](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/llvmorg-19-init/clang/test/Analysis/check-deserialization.cpp).
A full TU scan here will cause these PCHs to be deserialized even though the
rest of the analysis never needed to look at them.
I have some data that this can have significant performance impact. However,
other tools such as clang-tidy never had such optimization (they always scan
the entire TU indiscriminately) and this never stopped them from satisfying the
usual performance expectations of static analysis tools. We've also abandoned
this optimization in a downstream fork for a while and it seems perfectly
livable.
So I want to either abandon this non-deserialization guarantee (simply always
scan the entire TU), or find a different way to satisfy it (eg., collect those
ranges eagerly during AST construction so that to avoid the after-the-fact
scan; then if PCHs/modules are used, suppression ranges will make it into PCHs
and get deserialized together with them as-needed). I'll probably try to do
some of that in the coming weeks but I wanted this patch to be independent from
that so that to get the attribute's behavior to reasonable shape without
breaking anything else.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/80371
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[clang] [attributes][analyzer] Generalize [[clang::suppress]] to declarations. (PR #80371)
@@ -147,6 +147,20 @@ bool BugSuppression::isSuppressed(const
PathDiagnosticLocation ,
// done as well as perform a lot of work we'll never need.
// Gladly, none of our on-by-default checkers currently need it.
DeclWithIssue = ACtx.getTranslationUnitDecl();
+ } else {
+// This is the fast path. However, we should still consider the topmost
+// declaration that isn't TranslationUnitDecl, because we should respect
+// attributes on the entire declaration chain.
+while (true) {
erichkeane wrote:
What is going on here? How does this differ from just
`getTranslationUnitDecl`?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/80371
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[clang] [attributes][analyzer] Generalize [[clang::suppress]] to declarations. (PR #80371)
https://github.com/haoNoQ updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/80371
>From b702fcca1b4c5924ce4740d054e396aa4bc67e97 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Artem Dergachev
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2024 18:05:39 -0800
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [attributes][analyzer] Generalize [[clang::suppress]] to
declarations.
The attribute is now allowed on an assortment of declarations, to suppress
warnings related to declarations themselves, or all warnings in
the lexical scope of the declaration.
I don't necessarily see a reason to have a list at all, but it does look
as if some of those more niche items aren't properly supported
by the compiler itself so let's maintain a short safe list for now.
---
clang/include/clang/Basic/Attr.td | 7 ++
clang/include/clang/Basic/AttrDocs.td | 23 +++
clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp | 3 +
clang/lib/Sema/SemaDeclAttr.cpp | 5 --
.../Checkers/ObjCUnusedIVarsChecker.cpp | 2 +-
.../StaticAnalyzer/Core/BugSuppression.cpp| 18 -
.../WebKit/ref-cntbl-base-virtual-dtor.cpp| 10 +++
.../WebKit/uncounted-lambda-captures.cpp | 5 ++
.../Checkers/WebKit/uncounted-local-vars.cpp | 1 +
.../Checkers/WebKit/uncounted-members.cpp | 9 +++
clang/test/Analysis/ObjCRetSigs.m | 10 +++
clang/test/Analysis/objc_invalidation.m | 17 -
clang/test/Analysis/suppression-attr-doc.cpp | 14
clang/test/Analysis/suppression-attr.cpp | 68 +++
clang/test/Analysis/suppression-attr.m| 60
clang/test/Analysis/unused-ivars.m| 11 ++-
clang/test/SemaCXX/attr-suppress.cpp | 10 +--
clang/test/SemaObjC/attr-suppress.m | 19 ++
18 files changed, 250 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 clang/test/Analysis/suppression-attr.cpp
diff --git a/clang/include/clang/Basic/Attr.td
b/clang/include/clang/Basic/Attr.td
index 58838b01b4fd7..1b37b01ba6a3f 100644
--- a/clang/include/clang/Basic/Attr.td
+++ b/clang/include/clang/Basic/Attr.td
@@ -2891,6 +2891,13 @@ def Suppress : DeclOrStmtAttr {
let Spellings = [CXX11<"gsl", "suppress">, Clang<"suppress">];
let Args = [VariadicStringArgument<"DiagnosticIdentifiers">];
let Accessors = [Accessor<"isGSL", [CXX11<"gsl", "suppress">]>];
+ // There's no fundamental reason why we can't simply accept all Decls
+ // but let's make a short list so that to avoid supporting something weird
+ // by accident. We can always expand the list later.
+ let Subjects = SubjectList<[
+Stmt, Var, Field, ObjCProperty, Function, ObjCMethod, Record,
ObjCInterface,
+ObjCImplementation, Namespace, Empty
+ ], ErrorDiag, "variables, functions, structs, interfaces, and namespaces">;
let Documentation = [SuppressDocs];
}
diff --git a/clang/include/clang/Basic/AttrDocs.td
b/clang/include/clang/Basic/AttrDocs.td
index e02a1201e2ad7..a98d4b1f8d84d 100644
--- a/clang/include/clang/Basic/AttrDocs.td
+++ b/clang/include/clang/Basic/AttrDocs.td
@@ -5313,6 +5313,29 @@ Putting the attribute on a compound statement suppresses
all warnings in scope:
}
}
+The attribute can also be placed on entire declarations of functions, classes,
+variables, member variables, and so on, to suppress warnings related
+to the declarations themselves. When used this way, the attribute additionally
+suppresses all warnings in the lexical scope of the declaration:
+
+.. code-block:: c++
+
+ class [[clang::suppress]] C {
+int foo() {
+ int *x = nullptr;
+ ...
+ return *x; // warnings suppressed in the entire class scope
+}
+
+int bar();
+ };
+
+ int C::bar() {
+int *x = nullptr;
+...
+return *x; // warning NOT suppressed! - not lexically nested in 'class
C{}'
+ }
+
Some static analysis warnings are accompanied by one or more notes, and the
line of code against which the warning is emitted isn't necessarily the best
for suppression purposes. In such cases the tools are allowed to implement
diff --git a/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp b/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp
index fd1c47008d685..ca36d64cb077a 100644
--- a/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp
+++ b/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp
@@ -2960,6 +2960,9 @@ static bool mergeDeclAttribute(Sema , NamedDecl *D,
S.mergeHLSLNumThreadsAttr(D, *NT, NT->getX(), NT->getY(), NT->getZ());
else if (const auto *SA = dyn_cast(Attr))
NewAttr = S.mergeHLSLShaderAttr(D, *SA, SA->getType());
+ else if (const auto *SupA = dyn_cast(Attr))
+// Do nothing. Each redeclaration should be suppressed separately.
+NewAttr = nullptr;
else if (Attr->shouldInheritEvenIfAlreadyPresent() || !DeclHasAttr(D, Attr))
NewAttr = cast(Attr->clone(S.Context));
diff --git a/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDeclAttr.cpp b/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDeclAttr.cpp
index 069571fcf7864..3291ad732e98d 100644
--- a/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDeclAttr.cpp
+++ b/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDeclAttr.cpp
@@ -5245,11 +5245,6 @@ static void handleSuppressAttr(Sema , Decl *D,
[clang] [attributes][analyzer] Generalize [[clang::suppress]] to declarations. (PR #80371)
github-actions[bot] wrote: :warning: C/C++ code formatter, clang-format found issues in your code. :warning: You can test this locally with the following command: ``bash git-clang-format --diff 4d89356fef1a568de790ad8b3f53dc494b461e5b b702fcca1b4c5924ce4740d054e396aa4bc67e97 -- clang/test/Analysis/suppression-attr.cpp clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp clang/lib/Sema/SemaDeclAttr.cpp clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/ObjCUnusedIVarsChecker.cpp clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/BugSuppression.cpp clang/test/Analysis/Checkers/WebKit/ref-cntbl-base-virtual-dtor.cpp clang/test/Analysis/Checkers/WebKit/uncounted-lambda-captures.cpp clang/test/Analysis/Checkers/WebKit/uncounted-local-vars.cpp clang/test/Analysis/Checkers/WebKit/uncounted-members.cpp clang/test/Analysis/suppression-attr-doc.cpp clang/test/SemaCXX/attr-suppress.cpp `` View the diff from clang-format here. ``diff diff --git a/clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/ObjCUnusedIVarsChecker.cpp b/clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/ObjCUnusedIVarsChecker.cpp index 4f8750d9f1..2f2df63468 100644 --- a/clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/ObjCUnusedIVarsChecker.cpp +++ b/clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/ObjCUnusedIVarsChecker.cpp @@ -161,8 +161,8 @@ static void checkObjCUnusedIvar(const ObjCImplementationDecl *D, PathDiagnosticLocation L = PathDiagnosticLocation::create(Ivar, BR.getSourceManager()); - BR.EmitBasicReport(ID, Checker, "Unused instance variable", "Optimization", - os.str(), L); + BR.EmitBasicReport(ID, Checker, "Unused instance variable", + "Optimization", os.str(), L); } } `` https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/80371 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[clang] [attributes][analyzer] Generalize [[clang::suppress]] to declarations. (PR #80371)
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang
Author: Artem Dergachev (haoNoQ)
Changes
The attribute is now allowed on an assortment of declarations, to suppress
warnings related to declarations themselves, or all warnings in the lexical
scope of the declaration.
I don't necessarily see a reason to have a list at all, but it does look as if
some of those more niche items aren't properly supported by the compiler itself
so let's maintain a short safe list for now.
The initial implementation raised a question whether the attribute should apply
to lexical declaration context vs. "actual" declaration context. I'm using
"lexical" here because it results in less warnings suppressed, which is the
conservative behavior: we can always expand it later if we think this is wrong,
without breaking any existing code. I also think that this is the correct
behavior that we will probably never want to change, given that the user
typically desires to keep the suppressions as localized as possible.
---
Patch is 21.09 KiB, truncated to 20.00 KiB below, full version:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/80371.diff
18 Files Affected:
- (modified) clang/include/clang/Basic/Attr.td (+7)
- (modified) clang/include/clang/Basic/AttrDocs.td (+23)
- (modified) clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp (+3)
- (modified) clang/lib/Sema/SemaDeclAttr.cpp (-5)
- (modified) clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/ObjCUnusedIVarsChecker.cpp
(+1-1)
- (modified) clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/BugSuppression.cpp (+16-2)
- (modified)
clang/test/Analysis/Checkers/WebKit/ref-cntbl-base-virtual-dtor.cpp (+10)
- (modified) clang/test/Analysis/Checkers/WebKit/uncounted-lambda-captures.cpp
(+5)
- (modified) clang/test/Analysis/Checkers/WebKit/uncounted-local-vars.cpp (+1)
- (modified) clang/test/Analysis/Checkers/WebKit/uncounted-members.cpp (+9)
- (modified) clang/test/Analysis/ObjCRetSigs.m (+10)
- (modified) clang/test/Analysis/objc_invalidation.m (+15-2)
- (modified) clang/test/Analysis/suppression-attr-doc.cpp (+14)
- (added) clang/test/Analysis/suppression-attr.cpp (+68)
- (modified) clang/test/Analysis/suppression-attr.m (+45-15)
- (modified) clang/test/Analysis/unused-ivars.m (+10-1)
- (modified) clang/test/SemaCXX/attr-suppress.cpp (+6-4)
- (modified) clang/test/SemaObjC/attr-suppress.m (+7-12)
``diff
diff --git a/clang/include/clang/Basic/Attr.td
b/clang/include/clang/Basic/Attr.td
index 58838b01b4fd7..1b37b01ba6a3f 100644
--- a/clang/include/clang/Basic/Attr.td
+++ b/clang/include/clang/Basic/Attr.td
@@ -2891,6 +2891,13 @@ def Suppress : DeclOrStmtAttr {
let Spellings = [CXX11<"gsl", "suppress">, Clang<"suppress">];
let Args = [VariadicStringArgument<"DiagnosticIdentifiers">];
let Accessors = [Accessor<"isGSL", [CXX11<"gsl", "suppress">]>];
+ // There's no fundamental reason why we can't simply accept all Decls
+ // but let's make a short list so that to avoid supporting something weird
+ // by accident. We can always expand the list later.
+ let Subjects = SubjectList<[
+Stmt, Var, Field, ObjCProperty, Function, ObjCMethod, Record,
ObjCInterface,
+ObjCImplementation, Namespace, Empty
+ ], ErrorDiag, "variables, functions, structs, interfaces, and namespaces">;
let Documentation = [SuppressDocs];
}
diff --git a/clang/include/clang/Basic/AttrDocs.td
b/clang/include/clang/Basic/AttrDocs.td
index e02a1201e2ad7..a98d4b1f8d84d 100644
--- a/clang/include/clang/Basic/AttrDocs.td
+++ b/clang/include/clang/Basic/AttrDocs.td
@@ -5313,6 +5313,29 @@ Putting the attribute on a compound statement suppresses
all warnings in scope:
}
}
+The attribute can also be placed on entire declarations of functions, classes,
+variables, member variables, and so on, to suppress warnings related
+to the declarations themselves. When used this way, the attribute additionally
+suppresses all warnings in the lexical scope of the declaration:
+
+.. code-block:: c++
+
+ class [[clang::suppress]] C {
+int foo() {
+ int *x = nullptr;
+ ...
+ return *x; // warnings suppressed in the entire class scope
+}
+
+int bar();
+ };
+
+ int C::bar() {
+int *x = nullptr;
+...
+return *x; // warning NOT suppressed! - not lexically nested in 'class
C{}'
+ }
+
Some static analysis warnings are accompanied by one or more notes, and the
line of code against which the warning is emitted isn't necessarily the best
for suppression purposes. In such cases the tools are allowed to implement
diff --git a/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp b/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp
index fd1c47008d685..ca36d64cb077a 100644
--- a/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp
+++ b/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp
@@ -2960,6 +2960,9 @@ static bool mergeDeclAttribute(Sema , NamedDecl *D,
S.mergeHLSLNumThreadsAttr(D, *NT, NT->getX(), NT->getY(), NT->getZ());
else if (const auto *SA = dyn_cast(Attr))
NewAttr = S.mergeHLSLShaderAttr(D, *SA, SA->getType());
+ else if (const auto *SupA = dyn_cast(Attr))
[clang] [attributes][analyzer] Generalize [[clang::suppress]] to declarations. (PR #80371)
https://github.com/haoNoQ created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/80371
The attribute is now allowed on an assortment of declarations, to suppress
warnings related to declarations themselves, or all warnings in the lexical
scope of the declaration.
I don't necessarily see a reason to have a list at all, but it does look as if
some of those more niche items aren't properly supported by the compiler itself
so let's maintain a short safe list for now.
The initial implementation raised a question whether the attribute should apply
to lexical declaration context vs. "actual" declaration context. I'm using
"lexical" here because it results in less warnings suppressed, which is the
conservative behavior: we can always expand it later if we think this is wrong,
without breaking any existing code. I also think that this is the correct
behavior that we will probably never want to change, given that the user
typically desires to keep the suppressions as localized as possible.
>From b702fcca1b4c5924ce4740d054e396aa4bc67e97 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Artem Dergachev
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2024 18:05:39 -0800
Subject: [PATCH] [attributes][analyzer] Generalize [[clang::suppress]] to
declarations.
The attribute is now allowed on an assortment of declarations, to suppress
warnings related to declarations themselves, or all warnings in
the lexical scope of the declaration.
I don't necessarily see a reason to have a list at all, but it does look
as if some of those more niche items aren't properly supported
by the compiler itself so let's maintain a short safe list for now.
---
clang/include/clang/Basic/Attr.td | 7 ++
clang/include/clang/Basic/AttrDocs.td | 23 +++
clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp | 3 +
clang/lib/Sema/SemaDeclAttr.cpp | 5 --
.../Checkers/ObjCUnusedIVarsChecker.cpp | 2 +-
.../StaticAnalyzer/Core/BugSuppression.cpp| 18 -
.../WebKit/ref-cntbl-base-virtual-dtor.cpp| 10 +++
.../WebKit/uncounted-lambda-captures.cpp | 5 ++
.../Checkers/WebKit/uncounted-local-vars.cpp | 1 +
.../Checkers/WebKit/uncounted-members.cpp | 9 +++
clang/test/Analysis/ObjCRetSigs.m | 10 +++
clang/test/Analysis/objc_invalidation.m | 17 -
clang/test/Analysis/suppression-attr-doc.cpp | 14
clang/test/Analysis/suppression-attr.cpp | 68 +++
clang/test/Analysis/suppression-attr.m| 60
clang/test/Analysis/unused-ivars.m| 11 ++-
clang/test/SemaCXX/attr-suppress.cpp | 10 +--
clang/test/SemaObjC/attr-suppress.m | 19 ++
18 files changed, 250 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 clang/test/Analysis/suppression-attr.cpp
diff --git a/clang/include/clang/Basic/Attr.td
b/clang/include/clang/Basic/Attr.td
index 58838b01b4fd7..1b37b01ba6a3f 100644
--- a/clang/include/clang/Basic/Attr.td
+++ b/clang/include/clang/Basic/Attr.td
@@ -2891,6 +2891,13 @@ def Suppress : DeclOrStmtAttr {
let Spellings = [CXX11<"gsl", "suppress">, Clang<"suppress">];
let Args = [VariadicStringArgument<"DiagnosticIdentifiers">];
let Accessors = [Accessor<"isGSL", [CXX11<"gsl", "suppress">]>];
+ // There's no fundamental reason why we can't simply accept all Decls
+ // but let's make a short list so that to avoid supporting something weird
+ // by accident. We can always expand the list later.
+ let Subjects = SubjectList<[
+Stmt, Var, Field, ObjCProperty, Function, ObjCMethod, Record,
ObjCInterface,
+ObjCImplementation, Namespace, Empty
+ ], ErrorDiag, "variables, functions, structs, interfaces, and namespaces">;
let Documentation = [SuppressDocs];
}
diff --git a/clang/include/clang/Basic/AttrDocs.td
b/clang/include/clang/Basic/AttrDocs.td
index e02a1201e2ad7..a98d4b1f8d84d 100644
--- a/clang/include/clang/Basic/AttrDocs.td
+++ b/clang/include/clang/Basic/AttrDocs.td
@@ -5313,6 +5313,29 @@ Putting the attribute on a compound statement suppresses
all warnings in scope:
}
}
+The attribute can also be placed on entire declarations of functions, classes,
+variables, member variables, and so on, to suppress warnings related
+to the declarations themselves. When used this way, the attribute additionally
+suppresses all warnings in the lexical scope of the declaration:
+
+.. code-block:: c++
+
+ class [[clang::suppress]] C {
+int foo() {
+ int *x = nullptr;
+ ...
+ return *x; // warnings suppressed in the entire class scope
+}
+
+int bar();
+ };
+
+ int C::bar() {
+int *x = nullptr;
+...
+return *x; // warning NOT suppressed! - not lexically nested in 'class
C{}'
+ }
+
Some static analysis warnings are accompanied by one or more notes, and the
line of code against which the warning is emitted isn't necessarily the best
for suppression purposes. In such cases the tools are allowed to implement
diff --git a/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp
