================
@@ -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:
Hmm yeah, that makes sense. It’s a bit annoying that the wording is just
slightly different each time, otherwise, you could use something like
`.Summary` to re-use the text of another diagnostic, but I don’t think that
works for parts of it, and also, at that point it does really seem like you
just want a separate diagnostic.
I think the first two here are fine. We do have a few diagnostics w/ a lot of
`%select` cases (e.g. `err_deduced_tst`, `err_expr_not_cce`), but yeah, I’m not
sure you can reasonably combine these any further...
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
