If you remember the mail [1] I sent out about how I envision the future of the
already existing checkers to look dependencywise, one my main points was that no
checker that emits diagnostics should be a dependency. This is more problematic
for some checkers (ahem, RetainCount [2]) more than for others, like this one.
The MallocChecker family is a mostly big monolithic modeling class some small
reporting checkers that only come to action when we are constructing a warning
message, after the actual bug was detected. The implication of this is that
NewDeleteChecker doesn't really do anything to depend on, so this change was
relatively simple.
The only thing that complicates this change is that FreeMemAux (MallocCheckers
method that models general memory deallocation) returns after calling a bug
reporting method, regardless whether the report was ever emitted (which may not
always happen, for instance, if the checker responsible for the report isn't
enabled). This return unfortunately happens before cleaning up the maps in the
GDM keeping track of the state of symbols (whether they are released, whether
that release was successful, etc). What this means is that upon disabling some
checkers, we would never clean up the map and that could've lead to false
positives, e.g.:
error: 'warning' diagnostics seen but not expected:
File clang/test/Analysis/NewDelete-intersections.mm Line 66: Potential leak of memory pointed to by 'p'
File clang/test/Analysis/NewDelete-intersections.mm Line 73: Potential leak of memory pointed to by 'p'
File clang/test/Analysis/NewDelete-intersections.mm Line 77: Potential leak of memory pointed to by 'p'
error: 'warning' diagnostics seen but not expected:
File clang/test/Analysis/NewDelete-checker-test.cpp Line 111: Undefined or garbage value returned to caller
File clang/test/Analysis/NewDelete-checker-test.cpp Line 200: Potential leak of memory pointed to by 'p'
error: 'warning' diagnostics seen but not expected:
File clang/test/Analysis/new.cpp Line 137: Potential leak of memory pointed to by 'x'
There two possible approaches I had in mind:
Make bug reporting methods of MallocChecker returns whether they succeeded, and
proceed with the rest of FreeMemAux if not,
Halt execution with a sink node upon failure. I decided to go with this, as
described in the code.
As you can see from the removed/changed test files, before the big checker
dependency effort landed, there were tests to check for all the weird
configurations of enabled/disabled checkers and their messy interactions, I
largely repurposed these.
[1] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2019-August/063070.html
[2] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2019-August/063205.html
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D77474
In order to provide more test coverage for inlined operator new(), add more
run-lines to existing test cases, which would trigger our fake header
to provide a body for operator new(). Most of the code should still behave
reasonably. When behavior intentionally changes, #ifs are provided.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42221
llvm-svn: 323376
TODO: support realloc(). Currently it is not possible due to the present realloc() handling. Currently RegionState is not being attached to realloc() in case of a zero Size argument.
llvm-svn: 234889
+ separate bug report for "Free alloca()" error to be able to customize checkers responsible for this error.
+ Muted "Free alloca()" error for NewDelete checker that is not responsible for c-allocated memory, turned on for unix.MismatchedDeallocator checker.
+ RefState for alloca() - to be able to detect usage of zero-allocated memory by upcoming ZeroAllocDereference checker.
+ AF_Alloca family to handle alloca() consistently - keep proper family in RefState, handle 'alloca' by getCheckIfTracked() facility, etc.
+ extra tests.
llvm-svn: 229850
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
Kristóf Umann