Again, this is being applied in a separate commit so that the previous commit
can be reverted while leaving the test in place.
rdar://problem/20335433
llvm-svn: 233593
This is imitating a pre-r228174 state where ivars are not considered tracked by
default, but with the addition that even ivars /with/ retain count information
(e.g. "[_ivar retain]; [ivar _release];") are not being tracked as well. This is
to ensure that we don't regress on values accessed through both properties and
ivars, which is what r228174 was trying to fix.
The issue occurs in code like this:
[_contentView retain];
[_contentView removeFromSuperview];
[self addSubview:_contentView]; // invalidates 'self'
[_contentView release];
In this case, the call to -addSubview: may change the value of self->_contentView,
and so the analyzer can't be sure that we didn't leak the original _contentView.
This is a correct conservative view of the world, but not a useful one. Until we
have a heuristic that allows us to not consider this a leak, not emitting a
diagnostic is our best bet.
This commit disables all of the ivar-related retain count tests, but does not
remove them to ensure that we don't crash trying to evaluate either valid or
erroneous code. The next commit will add a new test for the example above so
that this commit (and the previous one) can be reverted wholesale when a better
solution is implemented.
Rest of rdar://problem/20335433
llvm-svn: 233592
Give up this checking in order to continue tracking that these values came from
direct ivar access, which will be important in the next commit.
Part of rdar://problem/20335433
llvm-svn: 233591
Similarly, don't assume +0 if the property's setter is manually implemented.
In both cases, if the property's ownership is explicitly written, then we /do/
assume the ivar has the same ownership.
rdar://problem/20218183
llvm-svn: 232849
In theory we could assume a CF property is stored at +0 if there's not a custom
setter, but that's not really worth the complexity. What we do know is that a
CF property can't have ownership attributes, and so we shouldn't assume anything
about the ownership of the ivar.
rdar://problem/20076963
llvm-svn: 231553
We expect in general that any nil value has no retain count information
associated with it; violating this results in unexpected state unification
/later/ when we decide to throw the information away. Unexpectedly caching
out can lead to an assertion failure or crash.
rdar://problem/19862648
llvm-svn: 229934
A refinement of r204730, itself a refinement of r198953, to better handle
cases where an object is accessed both through a property getter and
through direct ivar access. An object accessed through a property should
always be treated as +0, i.e. not owned by the caller. However, an object
accessed through an ivar may be at +0 or at +1, depending on whether the
ivar is a strong reference. Outside of ARC, we don't always have that
information.
The previous attempt would clear out the +0 provided by a getter, but only
if that +0 hadn't already participated in other retain counting operations.
(That is, "self.foo" is okay, but "[[self.foo retain] autorelease]" is
problematic.) This turned out to not be good enough when our synthesized
getters get involved.
This commit drops the notion of "overridable" reference counting and instead
just tracks whether a value ever came from a (strong) ivar. If it has, we
allow one more release than we otherwise would. This has the added benefit
of being able to catch /some/ overreleases of instance variables, though
it's not likely to come up in practice.
We do still get some false negatives because we currently throw away
refcount state upon assigning a value into an ivar. We should probably
improve on that in the future, especially once we synthesize setters as
well as getters.
rdar://problem/18075108
llvm-svn: 228174
A refinement of r198953 to handle cases where an object is accessed both through
a property getter and through direct ivar access. An object accessed through a
property should always be treated as +0, i.e. not owned by the caller. However,
an object accessed through an ivar may be at +0 or at +1, depending on whether
the ivar is a strong reference. Outside of ARC, we don't have that information,
so we just don't track objects accessed through ivars.
With this change, accessing an ivar directly will deliberately override the +0
provided by a getter, but only if the +0 hasn't participated in other retain
counting yet. That isn't perfect, but it's already unusual for people to be
mixing property access with direct ivar access. (The primary use case for this
is in setters, init methods, and -dealloc.)
Thanks to Ted for spotting a few mistakes in private review.
<rdar://problem/16333368>
llvm-svn: 204730
If there are non-trivially-copyable types /other/ than C++ records, we
won't have a synthesized copy expression, but we can't just use a simple
load/return.
Also, add comments and shore up tests, making sure to test in both ARC
and non-ARC.
llvm-svn: 199869
...by synthesizing their body to be "return self->_prop;", with an extra
nudge to RetainCountChecker to still treat the value as +0 if we have no
other information.
This doesn't handle weak properties, but that's mostly correct anyway,
since they can go to nil at any time. This also doesn't apply to properties
whose implementations we can't see, since they may not be backed by an
ivar at all. And finally, this doesn't handle properties of C++ class type,
because we can't invoke the copy constructor. (Sema has actually done this
work already, but the AST it synthesizes is one the analyzer doesn't quite
handle -- it has an rvalue DeclRefExpr.)
Modeling setters is likely to be more difficult (since it requires
handling strong/copy), but not impossible.
<rdar://problem/11956898>
llvm-svn: 198953
The warning this inhibits, -Wobjc-root-class, is opt-in for now. However, all clang unit tests that would trigger
the warning have been updated to use -Wno-objc-root-class. <rdar://problem/7446698>
llvm-svn: 154187
Remove TransferFuncs from ExprEngine and AnalysisConsumer.
Demote RetainReleaseChecker to a regular checker, and give it the name osx.cocoa.RetainCount (class name change coming shortly). Update tests accordingly.
llvm-svn: 138998
We translate property accesses to obj-c messages by simulating "loads" or "stores" to properties
using a pseudo-location SVal kind (ObjCPropRef).
Checkers can now reason about obj-c messages for both explicit message expressions and implicit
messages due to property accesses.
llvm-svn: 124161
Jordan Rose