More generally, this adds a new configuration option 'c++-inlining', which
controls which C++ member functions can be considered for inlining. This
uses the new -analyzer-config table, so the cc1 arguments will look like this:
... -analyzer-config c++-inlining=[none|methods|constructors|destructors]
Note that each mode implies that all the previous member function kinds
will be inlined as well; it doesn't make sense to inline destructors
without inlining constructors, for example.
The default mode is 'methods'.
llvm-svn: 163004
Because the CXXNewExpr appears after the CXXConstructExpr in the CFG, we don't
actually have the correct region to construct into at the time we decide
whether or not to inline. The long-term fix (discussed in PR12014) might be to
introduce a new CFG node (CFGAllocator) that appears before the constructor.
Tracking the short-term fix in <rdar://problem/12180598>.
llvm-svn: 162689
Since DynamicTypeInfo is not inherently related to inlining or to dynamic
calls, it makes more sense (to me) to discuss it first.
Also fix some typos, massage some grammar, and (hopefully) improve precision
and clarity.
llvm-svn: 162365
Formatting includes:
- removing line wraps (Emacs Cmd-Q), to make text easier to read
- provide useful indentation
- call out caveats and notes more explictly
Stylistically, I prefer the document talk in 3rd person instead of "we". The
term "we" is unambiguous, and sometimes refers to different things. I've passed
over the existing paragraphs and made them speak more about specific entities
that compose the analyzer and what they do (e.g., ExprEngine) instead of "we"
referring to the analyzer.
Further, I have substituted some vague concepts such as "state" or "program
state" and replaced them with their precise implementation counterparts (e.g.,
ProgramState). This makes the document more technically precise throughout the
entire narrative, which would sometimes use vague terms and other times precise
terms.
I've placed several comments within the document, which can be seen with
***TMK/COMMENT***, which indicate places that need to be enhanced or clarified,
or called out as questions about intended bheavior.
llvm-svn: 162338
Under -analyzer-ipa=basic-inlining, only C functions, blocks, and C++ static
member functions are inlined -- essentially, the calls that behave like simple
C function calls. This is essentially the behavior in Xcode 4.4.
C++ support still has some rough edges, and we don't want users to be worried
about them if they download and run their own checker. (In particular, the
massive number of false positives for analyzing LLVM comes from inlining
defensively-written code in contexts where more aggressive assumptions are
implicitly made. This problem is not unique to C++, but it is exacerbated by
the higher proportion of code that lives in header files in C++.)
The eventual goal is to be comfortable enough with C++ support (and simple
Objective-C support) to advance to -analyzer-ipa=inlining as the default
behavior. See the IPA design notes for more details.
llvm-svn: 162318
This attempts to be a higher-level description of our inlining heuristics
and decision trees than the source, where the work is spread out between
ExprEngine (mostly in ExprEngineCallAndReturn.cpp) and CallEvent, with a
few other classes participating as well.
llvm-svn: 162073
Jordan Rose