ExplodedGraph nodes will now have a numeric identifier stored in them
which will keep track of the order in which the nodes were created
and it will be fully deterministic both accross runs and across machines.
This is extremely useful for debugging as it allows reliably setting
conditional breakpoints by node IDs.
llvm-svn: 375186
Part of C++20 Concepts implementation effort. Added Concept Specialization Expressions that are created when a concept is refe$
D41217 on Phabricator.
(recommit after fixing failing Parser test on windows)
llvm-svn: 374903
Part of C++20 Concepts implementation effort. Added Concept Specialization Expressions that are created when a concept is referenced with arguments, and tests thereof.
llvm-svn: 374882
Added parsing/sema/codegen support for 'parallel master taskloop'
constructs. Some of the clauses, like 'grainsize', 'num_tasks', 'final'
and 'priority' are not supported in full, only constant expressions can
be used currently in these clauses.
llvm-svn: 374791
Summary:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43102
In today's edition of "Is this any better now that it isn't crashing?", I'd like to show you a very interesting test case with loop widening.
Looking at the included test case, it's immediately obvious that this is not only a false positive, but also a very bad bug report in general. We can see how the analyzer mistakenly invalidated `b`, instead of its pointee, resulting in it reporting a null pointer dereference error. Not only that, the point at which this change of value is noted at is at the loop, rather then at the method call.
It turns out that `FindLastStoreVisitor` works correctly, rather the supplied explodedgraph is faulty, because `BlockEdge` really is the `ProgramPoint` where this happens.
{F9855739}
So it's fair to say that this needs improving on multiple fronts. In any case, at least the crash is gone.
Full ExplodedGraph: {F9855743}
Reviewers: NoQ, xazax.hun, baloghadamsoftware, Charusso, dcoughlin, rnkovacs, TWeaver
Subscribers: JesperAntonsson, uabelho, Ka-Ka, bjope, whisperity, szepet, a.sidorin, mikhail.ramalho, donat.nagy, dkrupp, gamesh411, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66716
llvm-svn: 372269
Traditionally, clang-tidy uses the term check, and the analyzer uses checker,
but in the very early years, this wasn't the case, and code originating from the
early 2010's still incorrectly refer to checkers as checks.
This patch attempts to hunt down most of these, aiming to refer to checkers as
checkers, but preserve references to callback functions (like checkPreCall) as
checks.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67140
llvm-svn: 371760
At this point the PathDiagnostic, PathDiagnosticLocation, PathDiagnosticPiece
structures no longer rely on anything specific to Static Analyzer, so we can
move them out of it for everybody to use.
PathDiagnosticConsumers are still to be handed off.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67419
llvm-svn: 371661
This method of PathDiagnostic is a part of Static Analyzer's particular
path diagnostic construction scheme. As such, it doesn't belong to
the PathDiagnostic class, but to the Analyzer.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67418
llvm-svn: 371660
These static functions deal with ExplodedNodes which is something we don't want
the PathDiagnostic interface to know anything about, as it's planned to be
moved out of libStaticAnalyzerCore.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67382
llvm-svn: 371659
That's one of the few random entities in the PathDiagnostic interface that
are specific to the Static Analyzer. By moving them out we could let
everybody use path diagnostics without linking against Static Analyzer.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67381
llvm-svn: 371658
Checkers are now required to specify whether they're creating a
path-sensitive report or a path-insensitive report by constructing an
object of the respective type.
This makes BugReporter more independent from the rest of the Static Analyzer
because all Analyzer-specific code is now in sub-classes.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66572
llvm-svn: 371450
Allow attaching fixit hints to Static Analyzer BugReports.
Fixits are attached either to the bug report itself or to its notes
(path-sensitive event notes or path-insensitive extra notes).
Add support for fixits in text output (including the default text output that
goes without notes, as long as the fixit "belongs" to the warning).
Add support for fixits in the plist output mode.
Implement a fixit for the path-insensitive DeadStores checker. Only dead
initialization warning is currently covered.
Implement a fixit for the path-sensitive VirtualCall checker when the virtual
method is not pure virtual (in this case the "fix" is to suppress the warning
by qualifying the call).
Both fixits are under an off-by-default flag for now, because they
require more careful testing.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65182
llvm-svn: 371257
Most functions that our checkers react upon are not C-style variadic functions,
and therefore they have as many actual arguments as they have formal parameters.
However, it's not impossible to define a variadic function with the same name.
This will crash any checker that relies on CallDescription to check the number
of arguments but silently assumes that the number of parameters is the same.
Change CallDescription to check both the number of arguments and the number of
parameters by default.
If we're intentionally trying to match variadic functions, allow specifying
arguments and parameters separately (possibly omitting any of them).
For now we only have one CallDescription which would make use of those,
namely __builtin_va_start itself.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67019
llvm-svn: 371256
Write tests for the actual crash that was found. Write comments and refactor
code around 17 style bugs and suppress 3 false positives.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66847
llvm-svn: 370246
It was known to be a compile-time constant so it wasn't evaluated during
symbolic execution, but it wasn't evaluated as a compile-time constant either.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66565
llvm-svn: 370245
If the global variable has an initializer, we'll ignore it because we're usually
not analyzing the program from the beginning, which means that the global
variable may have changed before we start our analysis.
However when we're analyzing main() as the top-level function, we can rely
on global initializers to still be valid. At least in C; in C++ we have global
constructors that can still break this logic.
This patch allows the Static Analyzer to load constant initializers from
global variables if the top-level function of the current analysis is main().
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65361
llvm-svn: 370244
According to the SARIF specification, "a text region does not include the character specified by endColumn".
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65206
llvm-svn: 370060
As discussed on the mailing list, notes originating from the tracking of foreach
loop conditions are always meaningless.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66131
llvm-svn: 369613
Summary:
This patch introduces `DynamicCastInfo` similar to `DynamicTypeInfo` which
is stored in `CastSets` which are storing the dynamic cast informations of
objects based on memory regions. It could be used to store and check the
casts and prevent infeasible paths.
Reviewed By: NoQ
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66325
llvm-svn: 369605
In D65724, I do a pretty thorough explanation about how I'm solving this
problem, I think that summary nails whats happening here ;)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65725
llvm-svn: 369596
Exactly what it says on the tin! Note that we're talking about interestingness
in general, hence this isn't a control-dependency-tracking specific patch.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65724
llvm-svn: 369589
We defined (on the mailing list and here on phabricator) 2 different cases where
retrieving information about a control dependency condition is very important:
* When the condition's last write happened in a different stack frame
* When the collapse point of the condition (when we can constrain it to be
true/false) didn't happen in the actual condition.
It seems like we solved this problem with the help of expression value tracking,
and have started working on better diagnostics notes about this process.
Expression value tracking is nothing more than registering a variety of visitors
to construct reports about it. Each of the registered visitors (ReturnVisitor,
FindLastStoreVisitor, NoStoreFuncVisitor, etc) have something to go by: a
MemRegion, an SVal, an ExplodedNode, etc. For this reason, better explaining a
last write is super simple, we can always just pass on some more information to
the visitor in question (as seen in D65575).
ConditionBRVisitor is a different beast, as it was built for a different
purpose. It is responsible for constructing events at, well, conditions, and is
registered only once, and isn't a part of the "expression value tracking
family". Unfortunately, it is also the visitor to tinker with for constructing
better diagnostics about the collapse point problem.
This creates a need for alternative way to communicate with ConditionBRVisitor
that a specific condition is being tracked for for the reason of being a control
dependency. Since at almost all PathDiagnosticEventPiece construction the
visitor checks interestingness, it makes sense to pair interestingness with a
reason as to why we marked an entity as such.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65723
llvm-svn: 369583
Can't add much more to the title! This is part 1, the case where the collapse
point isn't in the condition point is the responsibility of ConditionBRVisitor,
which I'm addressing in part 2.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65575
llvm-svn: 369574
Add defensive check that prevents a crash when we try to evaluate a destructor
whose this-value is a concrete integer that isn't a null.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65349
llvm-svn: 369450
Calling a pure virtual method during construction or destruction
is undefined behavior. It's worth it to warn about it by default.
That part is now known as the cplusplus.PureVirtualCall checker.
Calling a normal virtual method during construction or destruction
may be fine, but does behave unexpectedly, as it skips virtual dispatch.
Do not warn about this by default, but let projects opt in into it
by enabling the optin.cplusplus.VirtualCall checker manually.
Give the two parts differentiated warning text:
Before:
Call to virtual function during construction or destruction:
Call to pure virtual function during construction
Call to virtual function during construction or destruction:
Call to virtual function during destruction
After:
Pure virtual method call:
Call to pure virtual method 'X::foo' during construction
has undefined behavior
Unexpected loss of virtual dispatch:
Call to virtual method 'Y::bar' during construction
bypasses virtual dispatch
Also fix checker names in consumers that support them (eg., clang-tidy)
because we now have different checker names for pure virtual calls and
regular virtual calls.
Also fix capitalization in the bug category.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64274
llvm-svn: 369449
Summary:
This patch introduces a new `analyzer-config` configuration:
`-analyzer-config silence-checkers`
which could be used to silence the given checkers.
It accepts a semicolon separated list, packed into quotation marks, e.g:
`-analyzer-config silence-checkers="core.DivideZero;core.NullDereference"`
It could be used to "disable" core checkers, so they model the analysis as
before, just if some of them are too noisy it prevents to emit reports.
This patch also adds support for that new option to the scan-build.
Passing the option `-disable-checker core.DivideZero` to the scan-build
will be transferred to `-analyzer-config silence-checkers=core.DivideZero`.
Reviewed By: NoQ, Szelethus
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66042
llvm-svn: 369078
Now that we've moved to C++14, we no longer need the llvm::make_unique
implementation from STLExtras.h. This patch is a mechanical replacement
of (hopefully) all the llvm::make_unique instances across the monorepo.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66259
llvm-svn: 368942
Well, what is says on the tin I guess!
Some more changes:
* Move isInevitablySinking() from BugReporter.cpp to CFGBlock's interface
* Rename and move findBlockForNode() from BugReporter.cpp to
ExplodedNode::getCFGBlock()
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65287
llvm-svn: 368836
Exactly what it says on the tin! The comments in the code detail this a
little more too.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64272
llvm-svn: 368817
When we're tracking a variable that is responsible for a null pointer
dereference or some other sinister programming error, we of course would like to
gather as much information why we think that the variable has that specific
value as possible. However, the newly introduced condition tracking shows that
tracking all values this thoroughly could easily cause an intolerable growth in
the bug report's length.
There are a variety of heuristics we discussed on the mailing list[1] to combat
this, all of them requiring to differentiate in between tracking a "regular
value" and a "condition".
This patch introduces the new `bugreporter::TrackingKind` enum, adds it to
several visitors as a non-optional argument, and moves some functions around to
make the code a little more coherent.
[1] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2019-June/062613.html
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64270
llvm-svn: 368777
Summary:
The following code snippet taken from D64271#1572188 has an issue: namely,
because `flag`'s value isn't undef or a concrete int, it isn't being tracked.
int flag;
bool coin();
void foo() {
flag = coin();
}
void test() {
int *x = 0;
int local_flag;
flag = 1;
foo();
local_flag = flag;
if (local_flag)
x = new int;
foo();
local_flag = flag;
if (local_flag)
*x = 5;
}
This, in my opinion, makes no sense, other values may be interesting too.
Originally added by rC185608.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64287
llvm-svn: 368773
Artem Dergachev