[PATCH] D43791: [analyzer] Suppress MallocChecker positives in destructors with atomics.

[Artem Dergachev via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

NoQ added inline comments.


================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/MallocChecker.cpp:2847
+
+  AtomicExpr::AtomicOp Op = AE->getOp();
+  if (Op != AtomicExpr::AO__c11_atomic_fetch_add &&
----------------
george.karpenkov wrote:
> IMO would be slightly easier to read with logic reversed, e.g.
> 
> ```
> if (AE == dyn_cast<>(...))
>    if (Op == add || Op == sub)
>       for (...)
>         if (...)
>           return true
> return false
> ```
> 
> But this is a preference and can be ignored.
Ok. Just in case, this is usually regulated via https://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#use-early-exits-and-continue-to-simplify-code but here it seems fine.


================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/MallocChecker.cpp:2899
+      // to find out if a likely-false-positive suppression should kick in.
+      for (const LocationContext *LC = CurrentLC; LC; LC = LC->getParent()) {
+        if (isa<CXXDestructorDecl>(LC->getDecl())) {
----------------
george.karpenkov wrote:
> I'm not sure what is going on here.
> We are just traversing the stack frame, finding the first destructor in the `isReleased` branch?
Do the updated comments make it more clear?


https://reviews.llvm.org/D43791