llvm-project

Commit Graph

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Anna Zaks	8e492c2380	[analyzer] Address Jordan’s review of r178309 - do not register an extra visitor for nil receiver We can check if the receiver is nil in the node that corresponds to the StmtPoint of the message send. At that point, the receiver is guaranteed to be live. We will find at least one unreclaimed node due to my previous commit (look for StmtPoint instead of PostStmt) and the fact that the nil receiver nodes are tagged. + a couple of extra tests. llvm-svn: 178381	2013-03-29 22:32:38 +00:00
Anna Zaks	05fb371efc	[analyzer] Apply the suppression rules to the nil receiver only if the value participates in the computation of the nil we warn about. We should only suppress a bug report if the IDCed or null returned nil value is directly related to the value we are warning about. This was not the case for nil receivers - we would suppress a bug report that had an IDCed nil receiver on the path regardless of how it’s related to the warning. 1) Thread EnableNullFPSuppression parameter through the visitors to differentiate between tracking the value which is directly responsible for the bug and other values that visitors are tracking (ex: general tracking of nil receivers). 2) in trackNullOrUndef specifically address the case when a value of the message send is nil due to the receiver being nil. llvm-svn: 178309	2013-03-28 23:15:22 +00:00
Anna Zaks	23c85ed52b	[analyzer] Pass the correct Expr to the bug reporter visitors when dealing with CompoundLiteralExpr This allows us to trigger the IDC visitor in the added test case. llvm-svn: 176577	2013-03-06 20:26:02 +00:00

Author

SHA1

Message

Date

Anna Zaks

8e492c2380

[analyzer] Address Jordan’s review of r178309 - do not register an extra visitor for nil receiver

We can check if the receiver is nil in the node that corresponds to the StmtPoint of the message send.
At that point, the receiver is guaranteed to be live. We will find at least one unreclaimed node due to
my previous commit (look for StmtPoint instead of PostStmt) and the fact that the nil receiver nodes are tagged.

+ a couple of extra tests.

llvm-svn: 178381

2013-03-29 22:32:38 +00:00

Anna Zaks

05fb371efc

[analyzer] Apply the suppression rules to the nil receiver only if the value participates in the computation of the nil we warn about.

We should only suppress a bug report if the IDCed or null returned nil value is directly related to the value we are warning about. This was
not the case for nil receivers - we would suppress a bug report that had an IDCed nil receiver on the path regardless of how it’s
related to the warning.

1) Thread EnableNullFPSuppression parameter through the visitors to differentiate between tracking the value which
is directly responsible for the bug and other values that visitors are tracking (ex: general tracking of nil receivers).
2) in trackNullOrUndef specifically address the case when a value of the message send is nil due to the receiver being nil.

llvm-svn: 178309

2013-03-28 23:15:22 +00:00

Anna Zaks

23c85ed52b

[analyzer] Pass the correct Expr to the bug reporter visitors when dealing with CompoundLiteralExpr

This allows us to trigger the IDC visitor in the added test case.

llvm-svn: 176577

2013-03-06 20:26:02 +00:00

3 Commits