When computing the value of ?: expression, we rely on the last expression in
the previous basic block to be the resulting value of the expression. This is
not the case for binary "?:" operator (GNU extension) in C++. As the last
basic block has the expression for the condition subexpression, which is an
R-value, whereas the true subexpression is the L-value.
Note the operator evaluation just happens to work in C since the true
subexpression is an R-value (like the condition subexpression). CFG is the
same in C and C++ case, but the AST nodes are different, which the LValue to
Rvalue conversion happening after the BinaryConditionalOperator evaluation.
Changed the logic to only use the last expression from the predecessor only
if it matches either true or false subexpression. Note, the logic needed
fortification anyway: L and R were passed but not even used by the function.
Also, change the conjureSymbolVal to correctly compute the type, when the
expression is an LG-value.
llvm-svn: 179574
While we don't do anything intelligent with pointers-to-members today,
it's perfectly legal to need a temporary of pointer-to-member type to, say,
pass by const reference. Tweak an assertion to allow this.
PR15742 and PR15747
llvm-svn: 179563
Structs and arrays can take advantage of the single top-level global
symbol optimization (described in the previous commit) just as well
as scalars.
No intended behavioral change.
llvm-svn: 179555
Now that we're invalidating global regions properly, we want to continue
taking advantage of a particular optimization: if all global regions are
invalidated together, we can represent the bindings of each region with
a "derived region value" symbol. Essentially, this lazily links each
global region with a single symbol created at invalidation time, rather
than binding each region with a new symbolic value.
We used to do this, but haven't been for a while; the previous commit
re-enabled this code path, and this handles the fallout.
<rdar://problem/13464044>
llvm-svn: 179554
This fixes a regression where a call to a function we can't reason about
would not actually invalidate global regions that had explicit bindings.
void test_that_now_works() {
globalInt = 42;
clang_analyzer_eval(globalInt == 42); // expected-warning{{TRUE}}
invalidateGlobals();
clang_analyzer_eval(globalInt == 42); // expected-warning{{UNKNOWN}}
}
This has probably been around since the initial "cluster" refactoring of
RegionStore, if not longer.
<rdar://problem/13464044>
llvm-svn: 179553
There are few cases where we can track the region, but cannot print the note,
which makes the testing limited. (Though, I’ve tested this manually by making
all regions non-printable.) Even though the applicability is limited now, the enhancement
will be more relevant as we start tracking more regions.
llvm-svn: 179396
Before:
1. Calling 'foo'
2. Doing something interesting
3. Returning from 'foo'
4. Some kind of error here
After:
1. Calling 'foo'
2. Doing something interesting
3. Returning from 'foo'
4. Some kind of error here
The location of the note is already in the caller, not the callee, so this
just brings the "depth" attribute in line with that.
This only affects plist diagnostic consumers (i.e. Xcode). It's necessary
for Xcode to associate the control flow arrows with the right stack frame.
<rdar://problem/13634363>
llvm-svn: 179351
In this code
int getZero() {
return 0;
}
void test() {
int problem = 1 / getZero(); // expected-warning {{Division by zero}}
}
we generate these arrows:
+-----------------+
| v
int problem = 1 / getZero();
^ |
+---+
where the top one represents the control flow up to the first call, and the
bottom one represents the flow to the division.* It turns out, however, that
we were generating the top arrow twice, as if attempting to "set up context"
after we had already returned from the call. This resulted in poor
highlighting in Xcode.
* Arguably the best location for the division is the '/', but that's a
different problem.
<rdar://problem/13326040>
llvm-svn: 179350
The heuristic here (proposed by Jordan) is that, usually, if a leak is due to an early exit from init, the allocation site will be
a call to alloc. Note that in other cases init resets self to [super init], which becomes the allocation site of the object.
llvm-svn: 179221
Previously, the analyzer used isIntegerType() everywhere, which uses the C
definition of "integer". The C++ predicate with the same behavior is
isIntegerOrUnscopedEnumerationType().
However, the analyzer is /really/ using this to ask if it's some sort of
"integrally representable" type, i.e. it should include C++11 scoped
enumerations as well. hasIntegerRepresentation() sounds like the right
predicate, but that includes vectors, which the analyzer represents by its
elements.
This commit audits all uses of isIntegerType() and replaces them with the
general isIntegerOrEnumerationType(), except in some specific cases where
it makes sense to exclude scoped enumerations, or any enumerations. These
cases now use isIntegerOrUnscopedEnumerationType() and getAs<BuiltinType>()
plus BuiltinType::isInteger().
isIntegerType() is hereby banned in the analyzer - lib/StaticAnalysis and
include/clang/StaticAnalysis. :-)
Fixes real assertion failures. PR15703 / <rdar://problem/12350701>
llvm-svn: 179081
Test that the path notes do not change. I don’t think we should print a note on escape.
Also, I’ve removed a check that assumed that the family stored in the RefStete could be
AF_None and added an assert in the constructor.
llvm-svn: 179075
This is important because sometimes two nodes are identical, except the
second one is a sink.
This bug has probably been around for a while, but it wouldn't have been an
issue in the old report graph algorithm. I'm ashamed to say I actually looked
at this the first time around and thought it would never be a problem...and
then didn't include an assertion to back that up.
PR15684
llvm-svn: 178944
As mentioned in the previous commit message, the use-after-free and
double-free warnings for 'delete' are worth enabling even while the
leak warnings still have false positives.
llvm-svn: 178891
This splits the leak-checking part of alpha.cplusplus.NewDelete into a
separate user-level checker, alpha.cplusplus.NewDeleteLeaks. All the
difficult false positives we've seen with the new/delete checker have been
spurious leak warnings; the use-after-free warnings and mismatched
deallocator warnings, while rare, have always been valid.
<rdar://problem/6194569>
llvm-svn: 178890
The statement passed to isTrackedFamily() might be a user defined function calling malloc; in this case we got AF_NONE family for this function.
Now the allocation family is derived from Sym, that holds a family of a real allocator.
This commit is also a movement towards getting rid of tracking memory allocating by unknown means.
llvm-svn: 178834
This fixes an issue pointed to by Jordan: if unix.Malloc and unix.MismatchedDeallocator are both on, then we end up still tracking leaks of memory allocated by new.
Moved the guards right before emitting the bug reports to unify and simplify the logic of handling of multiple checkers. Now all the checkers perform their checks regardless of if they were enabled, or not, and it is decided just before the emitting of the report, if it should be emitted. (idea from Anna).
Additional changes:
improved test coverage for checker correlations;
refactoring: BadDealloc -> MismatchedDealloc
llvm-svn: 178814
This turns on not only destructor inlining, but inlining of constructors
for types with non-trivial destructors. Per r178516, we will still not
inline the constructor or destructor of anything that looks like a
container unless the analyzer-config option 'c++-container-inlining' is
set to 'true'.
In addition to the more precise path-sensitive model, this allows us to
catch simple smart pointer issues:
#include <memory>
void test() {
std::auto_ptr<int> releaser(new int[4]);
} // memory allocated with 'new[]' should not be deleted with 'delete'
<rdar://problem/12295363>
llvm-svn: 178805
...and add a new test case.
I thought this was broken, but it isn't; refactoring and reformatting anyway
so that I don't make the same mistake again. No functionality change.
llvm-svn: 178799
Improvement of r178684 and r178685.
Jordan has pointed out that I should not rely on the value of the condition to know which expression branch
has been taken. It will not work in cases the branch condition is an unknown value (ex: we do not track the constraints for floats).
The better way of doing this would be to find out if the current node is the right or left successor of the node
that has the ternary operator as a terminator (which is how this is done in other places, like ConditionBRVisitor).
llvm-svn: 178701
The lifetime of a temporary can be extended when it is immediately bound
to a local reference:
const Value &MyVal = Value("temporary");
In this case, the temporary object's lifetime is extended for the entire
scope of the reference; at the end of the scope it is destroyed.
The analyzer was modeling this improperly in two ways:
- Since we don't model temporary constructors just yet, we create a fake
temporary region when it comes time to "materialize" a temporary into
a real object (lvalue). This wasn't taking base casts into account when
the bindings being materialized was Unknown; now it always respects base
casts except when the temporary region is itself a pointer.
- When actually destroying the region, the analyzer did not actually load
from the reference variable -- it was basically destroying the reference
instead of its referent. Now it does do the load.
This will be more useful whenever we finally start modeling temporaries,
or at least those that get bound to local reference variables.
<rdar://problem/13552274>
llvm-svn: 178697
1) Look for the node where the condition expression is live when checking if
it is constrained to true or false.
2) Fix a bug in ProgramState::isNull, which was masking the problem. When
the expression is not a symbol (,which is the case when it is Unknown) return
unconstrained value, instead of value constrained to “false”!
(Thankfully other callers of isNull have not been effected by the bug.)
llvm-svn: 178684
Tareq A. Siraj