`CallDescriptions` deserve its own translation unit.
This patch simply moves the corresponding parts.
Also includes the `CallDescription.h` where it's necessary.
Reviewed By: martong, xazax.hun, Szelethus
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113587
D105553 added NoStateChangeFuncVisitor, an abstract class to aid in creating
notes such as "Returning without writing to 'x'", or "Returning without changing
the ownership status of allocated memory". Its clients need to define, among
other things, what a change of state is.
For code like this:
f() {
g();
}
foo() {
f();
h();
}
We'd have a path in the ExplodedGraph that looks like this:
-- <g> -->
/ \
--- <f> --------> --- <h> --->
/ \ / \
-------- <foo> ------ <foo> -->
When we're interested in whether f neglected to change some property,
NoStateChangeFuncVisitor asks these questions:
÷×~
-- <g> -->
ß / \$ @&#*
--- <f> --------> --- <h> --->
/ \ / \
-------- <foo> ------ <foo> -->
Has anything changed in between # and *?
Has anything changed in between & and *?
Has anything changed in between @ and *?
...
Has anything changed in between $ and *?
Has anything changed in between × and ~?
Has anything changed in between ÷ and ~?
...
Has anything changed in between ß and *?
...
This is a rather thorough line of questioning, which is why in D105819, I was
only interested in whether state *right before* and *right after* a function
call changed, and early returned to the CallEnter location:
if (!CurrN->getLocationAs<CallEnter>())
return;
Except that I made a typo, and forgot to negate the condition. So, in this
patch, I'm fixing that, and under the same hood allow all clients to decide to
do this whole-function check instead of the thorough one.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108695
D105553 added NoStateChangeFuncVisitor, an abstract class to aid in creating
notes such as "Returning without writing to 'x'", or "Returning without changing
the ownership status of allocated memory". Its clients need to define, among
other things, what a change of state is.
For code like this:
f() {
g();
}
foo() {
f();
h();
}
We'd have a path in the ExplodedGraph that looks like this:
-- <g> -->
/ \
--- <f> --------> --- <h> --->
/ \ / \
-------- <foo> ------ <foo> -->
When we're interested in whether f neglected to change some property,
NoStateChangeFuncVisitor asks these questions:
÷×~
-- <g> -->
ß / \$ @&#*
--- <f> --------> --- <h> --->
/ \ / \
-------- <foo> ------ <foo> -->
Has anything changed in between # and *?
Has anything changed in between & and *?
Has anything changed in between @ and *?
...
Has anything changed in between $ and *?
Has anything changed in between × and ~?
Has anything changed in between ÷ and ~?
...
Has anything changed in between ß and *?
...
This is a rather thorough line of questioning, which is why in D105819, I was
only interested in whether state *right before* and *right after* a function
call changed, and early returned to the CallEnter location:
if (!CurrN->getLocationAs<CallEnter>())
return;
Except that I made a typo, and forgot to negate the condition. So, in this
patch, I'm fixing that, and under the same hood allow all clients to decide to
do this whole-function check instead of the thorough one.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108695
Since @bkramer bumped gtest to 1.10.0 I think it's a good time to clean
up some of my hacks.
Reviewed By: Szelethus
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102643
It turned out that the D78704 included a private LLVM header, which is excluded
from the LLVM install target.
I'm substituting that `#include` with the public one by moving the necessary
`#define` into that. There was a discussion about this at D78704 and on the
cfe-dev mailing list.
I'm also placing a note to remind others of this pitfall.
Reviewed By: mgorny
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84929
FalsePositiveRefutationBRVisitor had a bug where the constraints were not
properly collected thus crosschecked with Z3.
This patch demonstratest and fixes that bug.
Bug:
The visitor wanted to collect all the constraints on a BugPath.
Since it is a visitor, it stated the visitation of the BugPath with the node
before the ErrorNode. As a final step, it visited the ErrorNode explicitly,
before it processed the collected constraints.
In principle, the ErrorNode should have visited before every other node.
Since the constraints were collected into a map, mapping each symbol to its
RangeSet, if the map already had a mapping with the symbol, then it was skipped.
This behavior was flawed if:
We already had a constraint on a symbol, but at the end in the ErrorNode we have
a tighter constraint on that. Therefore, this visitor would not utilize that
tighter constraint during the crosscheck validation.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78457
Adds the test infrastructure for testing the FalsePositiveRefutationBRVisitor.
It will be extended in the D78457 patch, which demonstrates and fixes a bug in
the visitor.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78704
Adds the test infrastructure for testing the FalsePositiveRefutationBRVisitor.
It will be extended in the D78457 patch, which demonstrates and fixes a bug in
the visitor.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78704
Balazs Benics