test the CC1 layer.
This actually uncovered that the test semes to no longer be passing for
the reasons intended. =[ The name of the test would lead me to believe
that it should be testing the semantics of noreturn in the static
analyzer.... but there are in fact no -verify assertions about noreturn
that i can find. And the noreturn checker is no longer in 'alpha.core'.
It is in 'core.builtins'. The test *does* have one assertion for a null
dereference warning. This *also* isn't in 'alpha.core', but the driver
inserts a pile of other checker packages, including 'core' which has
this warning.
So I have switch the RUN line to actually do the minimal thing that this
test currently exercises, but someone who works on the static analyzer
should probably look at this and either nuke it or move it to actually
check the noreturn behavior.
llvm-svn: 199307
In preparation for making the Win32 triple imply MS ABI mode,
make all tests pass in this mode, or make them use the Itanium
mode explicitly.
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2401
llvm-svn: 199130
In an expression like "new (a, b) Foo(x, y)", two things happen:
- Memory is allocated by calling a function named 'operator new'.
- The memory is initialized using the constructor for 'Foo'.
Currently the analyzer only models the second event, though it has special
cases for both the default and placement forms of operator new. This patch
is the first step towards properly modeling both events: it changes the CFG
so that the above expression now generates the following elements.
1. a
2. b
3. (CFGNewAllocator)
4. x
5. y
6. Foo::Foo
The analyzer currently ignores the CFGNewAllocator element, but the next
step is to treat that as a call like any other.
The CFGNewAllocator element is not added to the CFG for analysis-based
warnings, since none of them take advantage of it yet.
llvm-svn: 199123
...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
...rather somewhere in the destructor when we try to access something and
realize the object has already been deleted. This is necessary because
the destructor is processed before the 'delete' itself.
Patch by Karthik Bhat!
llvm-svn: 198779
...even though the argument is declared "const void *", because this is
just a way to pass pointers around as objects. (Though NSData is often
a better one.)
PR18262
llvm-svn: 198710
This checker has not been updated to work with interprocedural analysis,
and actually contains both logical correctness issues but also
memory bugs. We can resuscitate it from version control once there
is focused interest in making it a real viable checker again.
llvm-svn: 198476
We have assertions for this, but a few edge cases had snuck through where
we were still unconditionally using 'int'.
<rdar://problem/15703011>
llvm-svn: 197733
Fixes <rdar://problem/15584219> and <rdar://problem/12241361>.
This change looks large, but all it does is reuse and consolidate
the delayed diagnostic logic for deprecation warnings with unavailability
warnings. By doing so, it showed various inconsistencies between the
diagnostics, which were close, but not consistent. It also revealed
some missing "note:"'s in the deprecated diagnostics that were showing
up in the unavailable diagnostics, etc.
This change also changes the wording of the core deprecation diagnostics.
Instead of saying "function has been explicitly marked deprecated"
we now saw "'X' has been been explicitly marked deprecated". It
turns out providing a bit more context is useful, and often we
got the actual term wrong or it was not very precise
(e.g., "function" instead of "destructor"). By just saying the name
of the thing that is deprecated/deleted/unavailable we define
this issue away. This diagnostic can likely be further wordsmithed
to be shorter.
llvm-svn: 197627
cstring, converted to NSString, produce the
matching AST for it. This also required some
refactoring of the previous code. // rdar://14106083
llvm-svn: 197605
This patch was submitted to the list for review and didn't receive a LGTM.
(In fact one explicit objection and one query were raised.)
This reverts commit r197295.
llvm-svn: 197299
Previously, a line like
// expected-error-re {{foo}}
treats the entirety of foo as a regex. This is inconvenient when matching type
names containing regex characters. For example, to match
"void *(class test8::A::*)(void)" inside such a regex, one would have to type
"void \*\(class test8::A::\*\)\(void\)".
This patch changes the semantics of expected-error-re to only treat the parts
of the directive wrapped in double curly braces as regexes. This avoids the
escaping problem and leads to nicer patterns for those cases; see e.g. the
change to test/Sema/format-strings-scanf.c.
(The balanced search for closing }} of a directive also makes us handle the
full directive in test\SemaCXX\constexpr-printing.cpp:41 and :53.)
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2388
llvm-svn: 197092
Warn if both result expressions of a ternary operator (? :) are the same.
Because only one of them will be executed, this warning will fire even if
the expressions have side effects.
Patch by Anders Rönnholm and Per Viberg!
llvm-svn: 196937
This is another regression fixed by reverting r189090.
In this case, the problem is not live variables but the approach that was taken in r189090. This regression was caused by explicitly binding "true" to the condition when we take the true branch. Normally that's okay, but in this case we're planning to reuse that condition as the value of the expression.
llvm-svn: 196599
This reverts commit r189090.
The original patch introduced regressions (see the added live-variables.* tests). The patch depends on the correctness of live variable analyses, which are not computed correctly. I've opened PR18159 to track the proper resolution to this problem.
The patch was a stepping block to r189746. This is why part of the patch reverts temporary destructor tests that started crashing. The temporary destructors feature is disabled by default.
llvm-svn: 196593
New rules of invalidation/escape of the source buffer of memcpy: the source buffer contents is invalidated and escape while the source buffer region itself is neither invalidated, nor escape.
In the current modeling of memcpy the information about allocation state of regions, accessible through the source buffer, is not copied to the destination buffer and we can not track the allocation state of those regions anymore. So we invalidate/escape the source buffer indirect regions in anticipation of their being invalidated for real later. This eliminates false-positive leaks reported by the unix.Malloc and alpha.cplusplus.NewDeleteLeaks checkers for the cases like
char *f() {
void *x = malloc(47);
char *a;
memcpy(&a, &x, sizeof a);
return a;
}
llvm-svn: 194953
This is similar to r194004: because we can't reason about the data structure
invariants of std::basic_string, the analyzer decides it's possible for an
allocator to be used to deallocate the string's inline storage. Just ignore
this by walking up the stack, skipping past methods in classes with
"allocator" in the name, and seeing if we reach std::basic_string that way.
PR17866
llvm-svn: 194764
This syntactic checker looks for expressions on both sides of comparison
operators that are structurally the same. As a special case, the
floating-point idiom "x != x" for "isnan(x)" is left alone.
Currently this only checks comparison operators, but in the future we could
extend this to include logical operators or chained if-conditionals.
Checker by Per Viberg!
llvm-svn: 194236
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
The path note that says "Loop body executed 0 times" has been changed to
"Loop body skipped when range is empty" for C++11 for-range loops, and to
"Loop body skipped when collection is empty" for Objective-C for-in loops.
Part of <rdar://problem/14992886>
llvm-svn: 194234
We could certainly be more precise in many of our diagnostics, but before we
were printing "Assuming x is && y", which is just ridiculous.
<rdar://problem/15167979>
llvm-svn: 193455
This ensures that variables accessible through a union are invalidated when
the union value is passed to a function. We still don't fully handle union
values, but this should at least quiet some false positives.
PR16596
llvm-svn: 193265
This patch wasn't reviewed, and isn't correctly preserving the behaviors
relied upon by QT. I don't have a direct example of fallout, but it
should go through the standard code review process. For example, it
should never have removed the QT test case that was added when fixing
those users.
llvm-svn: 193174
Due to statement expressions supported as GCC extension, it is possible
to put 'break' or 'continue' into a loop/switch statement but outside its
body, for example:
for ( ; ({ if (first) { first = 0; continue; } 0; }); )
Such usage must be diagnosed as an error, GCC rejects it. To recognize
this and similar patterns the flags BreakScope and ContinueScope are
temporarily turned off while parsing condition expression.
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D1762
llvm-svn: 193073
Since these aren't lexically in the constructor, drawing arrows would
be a horrible jump across the body of the class. We could still do
better here by skipping over unimportant initializers, but this at least
keeps everything within the body of the constructor.
<rdar://problem/14960554>
llvm-svn: 192818
This will emit a warning if a call to clang_analyzer_warnIfReached is
executed, printing REACHABLE. This is a more explicit way to declare
expected reachability than using clang_analyzer_eval or triggering
a bug (divide-by-zero or null dereference), and unlike the former will
work the same in inlined functions and top-level functions. Like the
other debug helpers, it is part of the debug.ExprInspection checker.
Patch by Jared Grubb!
llvm-svn: 191909
Also add some tests that there is actually a message and that the bug is
actually a hard error. This actually behaved correctly before, because:
- addTransition() doesn't actually add a transition if the new state is null;
it assumes you want to propagate the predecessor forward and does nothing.
- generateSink() is called in order to emit a bug report.
- If at least one new node has been generated, the predecessor node is /not/
propagated forward.
But now it's spelled out explicitly.
Found by Richard Mazorodze, who's working on a patch that may require this.
llvm-svn: 191805
Jordan Rose