Moved UninitializedObjectChecker from the 'alpha.cplusplus' to the
'optin.cplusplus' package.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58573
llvm-svn: 358797
For the following example:
struct Base {
int x;
};
// In a different translation unit
struct Derived : public Base {
Derived() {}
};
For a call to Derived::Derived(), we'll receive a note that
this->x is uninitialized. Since x is not a direct field of Derived,
it could be a little confusing. This patch aims to fix this, as well
as the case when the derived object has a field that has the name as
an inherited uninitialized data member:
struct Base {
int x; // note: uninitialized field 'this->Base::x'
};
struct Derived : public Base {
int x = 5;
Derived() {}
};
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50905
llvm-svn: 340272
This patch fixed an issue where the dynamic type of pointer/reference
object was known by the analyzer, but wasn't obtained in the checker,
which resulted in false negatives. This should also increase reliability
of the checker, as derefencing is always done now according to the
dynamic type (even if that happens to be the same as the static type).
Special thanks to Artem Degrachev for setting me on the right track.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49199
llvm-svn: 339240
Even for a checker being in alpha, some reports about pointees held so little
value to the user that it's safer to disable pointer/reference chasing for now.
It can be enabled with a new flag, in which case checker should function as it
has always been. This can be set with `CheckPointeeInitialization`.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49438
llvm-svn: 339135
This checker analyzes C++ constructor calls, and reports uninitialized fields.
Due to the nature of this problem (uninitialized fields after an object
construction), this checker doesn't search for bugs, but rather is a tool to
enforce a specific programming model where every field needs to be initialized.
This checker lands in alpha for now, and a number of followup patches will be
made to reduce false negatives and to make it easier for the user to understand
what rules the checker relies on, eg. whether a derived class' constructor is
responsible for initializing inherited data members or whether it should be
handled in the base class' constructor.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45532
llvm-svn: 334935
Kristof Umann