r321682 - [analyzer] do not crash with assertion on processing locations of bodyfarmed functions

[George Karpenkov via cfe-commits]

Author: george.karpenkov
Date: Tue Jan  2 15:05:47 2018
New Revision: 321682

URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=321682&view=rev
Log:
[analyzer] do not crash with assertion on processing locations of bodyfarmed functions

This addresses an issue introduced in r183451: since
`removePiecesWithInvalidLocations` is called *after* `adjustCallLocations`,
it is not necessary, and in fact harmful, to have this assertion in
adjustCallLocations.

Addresses rdar://36170689

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41680

Modified:
    cfe/trunk/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/BugReporter.cpp
    cfe/trunk/test/Analysis/call_once.cpp

Modified: cfe/trunk/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/BugReporter.cpp
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/BugReporter.cpp?rev=321682&r1=321681&r2=321682&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- cfe/trunk/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/BugReporter.cpp (original)
+++ cfe/trunk/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/BugReporter.cpp Tue Jan  2 15:05:47 2018
@@ -229,7 +229,6 @@ adjustCallLocations(PathPieces &Pieces,
     PathDiagnosticCallPiece *Call = dyn_cast<PathDiagnosticCallPiece>(I->get());
 
     if (!Call) {
-      assert((*I)->getLocation().asLocation().isValid());
       continue;
     }
 

Modified: cfe/trunk/test/Analysis/call_once.cpp
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/Analysis/call_once.cpp?rev=321682&r1=321681&r2=321682&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- cfe/trunk/test/Analysis/call_once.cpp (original)
+++ cfe/trunk/test/Analysis/call_once.cpp Tue Jan  2 15:05:47 2018
@@ -1,10 +1,11 @@
-// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -std=c++11 -fblocks -analyzer-checker=core,debug.ExprInspection -verify %s
-// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -std=c++11 -fblocks -analyzer-checker=core,debug.ExprInspection -DEMULATE_LIBSTDCPP -verify %s
+// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -std=c++11 -fblocks -analyzer-checker=core,debug.ExprInspection -verify %s -o %t.report
+// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -std=c++11 -fblocks -analyzer-checker=core,debug.ExprInspection -DEMULATE_LIBSTDCPP -verify %s -o %t.report
 
 // We do NOT model libcxx03 implementation, but the analyzer should still
 // not crash.
-// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -std=c++11 -fblocks -analyzer-checker=core,debug.ExprInspection -DEMULATE_LIBCXX03 -verify %s
-// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -std=c++11 -fblocks -analyzer-checker=core,debug.ExprInspection -DEMULATE_LIBCXX03 -DEMULATE_LIBSTDCPP -verify %s
+// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -std=c++11 -fblocks -analyzer-checker=core,debug.ExprInspection -DEMULATE_LIBCXX03 -verify %s -o %t.report
+// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -std=c++11 -fblocks -analyzer-checker=core,debug.ExprInspection -DEMULATE_LIBCXX03 -DEMULATE_LIBSTDCPP -verify %s -o %t.report
+// RUN: rm -rf %t.report
 
 void clang_analyzer_eval(bool);