This reverts commit 52aeacfbf5.
There isn't full agreement on a path forward yet, but there is agreement that
this shouldn't land as-is. See discussion on https://reviews.llvm.org/D105338
Also reverts unreviewed "[clang] Improve `-Wnull-dereference` diag to be more in-line with reality"
This reverts commit f4877c78c0.
And all the related changes to tests:
This reverts commit 9a0152799f.
This reverts commit 3f7c9cc274.
This reverts commit 329f8197ef.
This reverts commit aa9f58cc2c.
This reverts commit 2df37d5ddd.
This reverts commit a72a441812.
Previously, iteration through nil objects which resulted from
objc-messages being set to nil were modeled incorrectly.
There are a couple of notes about this patch:
In principle, ExprEngineObjC might be left untouched IFF osx.loops
checker is enabled.
I however think that we should not do something
completely incorrect depending on what checkers are left on.
We should evaluate and potentially remove altogether the isConsumedExpr
performance heuristic, as it seems very fragile.
rdar://22205149
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44178
llvm-svn: 326982
The analyzer now realizes that C++ std::initializer_list objects and
Objective-C boxed structure/array/dictionary expressions can potentially
maintain a reference to the objects that were put into them. This avoids
false memory leak posivites and a few other issues.
This is a conservative behavior; for now, we do not model what actually happens
to the objects after being passed into such initializer lists.
rdar://problem/32918288
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35216
llvm-svn: 314975
An Objective-C for-in loop will have zero iterations if the collection is
empty. Previously, we could only detect this case if the program asked for
the collection's -count /before/ the for-in loop. Now, the analyzer
distinguishes for-in loops that had zero iterations from those with at
least one, and can use this information to constrain the result of calling
-count after the loop.
In order to make this actually useful, teach the checker that methods on
NSArray, NSDictionary, and the other immutable collection classes don't
change the count.
<rdar://problem/14992886>
llvm-svn: 194235
This fixes false positives by allowing us to know that a loop is always entered if
the collection count method returns a positive value and vice versa.
Addresses radar://14169391.
llvm-svn: 184618
In an Objective-C for-in loop "for (id element in collection) {}", the loop
will run 0 times if the collection is nil. This is because the for-in loop
is implemented using a protocol method that returns 0 when there are no
elements to iterate, and messages to nil will result in a 0 return value.
At some point we may want to actually model this message send, but for now
we may as well get the nil case correct, and avoid the false positives that
would come with this case.
<rdar://problem/13744632>
llvm-svn: 180639
While collections containing nil elements can still be iterated over in an
Objective-C for-in loop, the most common Cocoa collections -- NSArray,
NSDictionary, and NSSet -- cannot contain nil elements. This checker adds
that assumption to the analyzer state.
This was the cause of some minor false positives concerning CFRelease calls
on objects in an NSArray.
llvm-svn: 158319
Nico Weber