[clang] nonblocking/nonallocating attributes: 2nd pass caller/callee analysis (PR #99656)

via cfe-commits cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org
Tue Aug 20 07:06:54 PDT 2024


================
@@ -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:

Sounds good. We can come back to that later (or not if it turns out that the diagnostic is already obvious enough). I think member initialisers (and maybe default arguments too; I forgot what we’re doing for those atm) are the main cases where the location of the code that contains the problem doesn’t make it obvious where it was invoked from.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/99656


More information about the cfe-commits mailing list