Suppress the warning by just not emitting the report. The sink node
would get generated, which is fine since we did reach a bad state.
Motivation
Due to the way code is structured in some of these macros, we do not
reason correctly about it and report false positives. Specifically, the
following loop reports a use-after-free. Because of the way the code is
structured inside of the macro, the analyzer assumes that the list can
have cycles, so you end up with use-after-free in the loop, that is
safely deleting elements of the list. (The user does not have a way to
teach the analyzer about shape of data structures.)
SLIST_FOREACH_SAFE(item, &ctx->example_list, example_le, tmpitem) {
if (item->index == 3) { // if you remove each time, no complaints
assert((&ctx->example_list)->slh_first == item);
SLIST_REMOVE(&ctx->example_list, item, example_s, example_le);
free(item);
}
}
llvm-svn: 172883
path notes for cases where a value may be assumed to be null, etc.
Instead of having redundant diagnostics, do a pass over the generated
PathDiagnostic pieces and remove notes from TrackConstraintBRVisitor
that are already covered by ConditionBRVisitor, whose notes tend
to be better.
Fixes <rdar://problem/12252783>
llvm-svn: 166728
implicit pointer-to-boolean conversions in condition expressions. This would
result in inconsistent diagnostic emission between C and C++.
A consequence of this is now ConditionBRVisitor and TrackConstraintBRVisitor may
emit redundant diagnostics, for example:
"Assuming pointer value is null" (TrackConstraintBRVisitor)
"Assuming 'p' is null" (ConditionBRVisitor)
We need to reconcile the two, and perhaps prefer one over the other in some
cases.
llvm-svn: 163372
If a region is binded to a symbolic value, we should track the symbol.
(The code I changed was not previously exercised by the regression
tests.)
llvm-svn: 163261
This heuristic addresses the case when a pointer (or ref) is passed
to a function, which initializes the variable (or sets it to something
other than '0'). On the branch where the inlined function does not
set the value, we report use of undefined value (or NULL pointer
dereference). The access happens in the caller and the path
through the callee would get pruned away with regular path pruning. To
solve this issue, we previously disabled diagnostic pruning completely
on undefined and null pointer dereference checks, which entailed very
verbose diagnostics in most cases. Furthermore, not all of the
undef value checks had the diagnostic pruning disabled.
This patch implements the following heuristic: if we pass a pointer (or
ref) to the region (on which the error is reported) into a function and
it's value is either undef or 'NULL' (and is a pointer), do not prune
the function.
llvm-svn: 162863
Jordan Rose