<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Mar 5, 2015, at 5:37 PM, Anton Yartsev <<a href="mailto:anton.yartsev@gmail.com" class="">anton.yartsev@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type" class="">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 05.03.2015 21:39, Anna Zaks wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:1F718B4B-258E-41D6-9DBE-58E7B5F330EC@apple.com" type="cite" class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" class="">
<br class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Feb 17, 2015, at 4:39 PM, Anton Yartsev <<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:anton.yartsev@gmail.com" class="">anton.yartsev@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">Author: ayartsev<br class="">
Date: Tue Feb 17 18:39:06 2015<br class="">
New Revision: 229593<br class="">
<br class="">
URL: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=229593&view=rev" class="">http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=229593&view=rev</a><br class="">
Log:<br class="">
[analyzer] Refactoring: clarified the way the proper check
kind is chosen.<br class="">
<br class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Anton, this doesn’t look like a simple
refactoring. Also, the new API looks more confusing and
difficult to use. </div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0px; font-size: 11px; font-family: Menlo;
color: rgb(49, 89, 93);" class=""><span style="" class=""><br class="">
</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font-size: 11px; font-family: Menlo;
color: rgb(49, 89, 93);" class="">
<div style="margin: 0px;" class=""><span style="" class=""> </span><span style="font-variant-ligatures: no-common-ligatures;
color: #bb2ca2" class="">auto</span><span style="" class=""> CheckKind = </span>getCheckIfTracked<span style="" class="">(</span>C, DeallocExpr);</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;" class="">vs</div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font-size: 11px; font-family: Menlo;
color: rgb(49, 89, 93);" class="">
<div style="margin: 0px;" class=""><span style="" class=""> </span><span style="font-variant-ligatures: no-common-ligatures;
color: #bb2ca2" class="">auto</span><span style="" class=""> CheckKind = </span>getCheckIfTracked<span style="" class="">(</span>MakeVecFromCK<span style="" class="">(</span>CK_MallocOptimistic<span style="" class="">,</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;" class="">
CK_MallocPessimistic,</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;" class="">
CK_NewDeleteChecker),</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;" class="">
C, DeallocExpr);</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;" class=""><br class="">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="">Instead of checking if any of our checkers handle
a specific family and returning the one that does, we now have
to pass in the list of checkers we are interested in. Can you
explain why this is needed? </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">I think this is a step in the wrong direction. My
understanding is that some of the methods only work for
specific checkers (regardless of the family being processed).
Therefore, they returned early in case they were called on
checkers, where they are useless. Looks like you are trying to
fold that check into the API family check, which is unrelated.
Though, I might be missing something..</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Hi Anna!)</div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>Here is my very high level description on how this works:</div><div>When reporting a bug, we call getCheckIfTracked(..) to find out which check should be used to report it. (We might ocasionaly use the method in some other context as well.) In most cases, we expect only one of the checkers to track the symbol.</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class="">
The old getCheckIfTracked() has two drawbacks: first, it does not
considered CK_MismatchedDeallocatorChecker and
CK_NewDeleteLeaksChecker checkers. <br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>I don’t think it should work with CK_MismatchedDeallocatorChecker as it covers the case of mixed families. How is this API useful in that case? In your implementation, you always return it back.</div><div><br class=""></div></div><div>We can discuss the specifics of CK_NewDeleteLeaksChecker in more detail, but my understanding is that the reason why it does not work is that we want to be able to turn the DeleteLeaks off separately because it could lead to false positives. Hopefully, that is a transitional limitation, so we should not design the malloc checker around that.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>On the other hand, we should design this to be easily extendable to handle more families, and this patch hampers that. You’d need to grow the list of checkers you send to each call to this function for every new family. Ex: KeychainAPI checker should be folded into this. </div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class="">
The second is that there is, in fact, unable to customize the set of
checkers getCheckIfTracked() chooses from. For each family there are
several checkers responsible for it. Without providing the set of
checkers of interest getCheckIfTracked() is ugly in use.</div></div></blockquote></div><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class=""> Consider
changes in MallocChecker::reportLeak() below - the removed block of
code (marked start and end of the code with "---------" for you).
This piece was just added for situations (hard to guess looking at
the code), when, for example, CK_MallocPessimistic and CK_NewDelete
are 'on' and CK_NewDeleteLeaksChecker is 'off' and in this case
getCheckIfTracked() returns CK_NewDelete checker as the checker,
responsible for the AF_CXXNew/AF_CXXNewArray families. The code
looks confusing in consideration of the fact that we rejected all
the checkers responsible for AF_CXXNew/AF_CXXNewArray families,
except CK_NewDeleteLeaksChecker, by writing '<small class=""><small class="">if (...
&& !ChecksEnabled[CK_NewDeleteLeaksChecker]) return;</small></small>'
at the beginning of the method. In the current implementation
getCheckIfTracked() returns only the checkers it was restricted for.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>I think it’s better to have one ugly spot that handles a corner case such as DeleteLeaks. (If we want all leak checks to be separate, we can design a solution for that as well. Maybe a boolean argument is passed in whenever we are processing a leak?)</div><div><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class="">
<br class="">
The second bonus of the current implementation is that it gets us
rid of the check for specific checkers at the beginning. <br class=""></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:1F718B4B-258E-41D6-9DBE-58E7B5F330EC@apple.com" type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">Modified:<br class="">
cfe/trunk/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/MallocChecker.cpp<br class="">
<br class="">
Modified:
cfe/trunk/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/MallocChecker.cpp<br class="">
URL: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/MallocChecker.cpp?rev=229593&r1=229592&r2=229593&view=diff" class="">http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/MallocChecker.cpp?rev=229593&r1=229592&r2=229593&view=diff</a><br class="">
==============================================================================<br class="">
--- cfe/trunk/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/MallocChecker.cpp
(original)<br class="">
+++ cfe/trunk/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/MallocChecker.cpp
Tue Feb 17 18:39:06 2015<br class="">
@@ -184,6 +184,7 @@ public:<br class="">
<br class="">
DefaultBool ChecksEnabled[CK_NumCheckKinds];<br class="">
CheckName CheckNames[CK_NumCheckKinds];<br class="">
+ typedef llvm::SmallVector<CheckKind,
CK_NumCheckKinds> CKVecTy;<br class="">
<br class="">
void checkPreCall(const CallEvent &Call,
CheckerContext &C) const;<br class="">
void checkPostStmt(const CallExpr *CE, CheckerContext
&C) const;<br class="">
@@ -327,12 +328,16 @@ private:<br class="">
<br class="">
///@{<br class="">
/// Tells if a given family/call/symbol is tracked by the
current checker.<br class="">
- /// Sets CheckKind to the kind of the checker responsible
for this<br class="">
- /// family/call/symbol.<br class="">
- Optional<CheckKind>
getCheckIfTracked(AllocationFamily Family) const;<br class="">
- Optional<CheckKind>
getCheckIfTracked(CheckerContext &C,<br class="">
+ /// Looks through incoming CheckKind(s) and returns the
kind of the checker <br class="">
+ /// responsible for this family/call/symbol.<br class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
Is it possible for more than one checker to be responsible for
the same family? <br class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes, it is possible, e.g. NewDelete, NewDeleteLeaks and
MismatchedDeallocator are responsible for AF_CXXNew/AF_CXXNewArray
families.<br class="">
<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>NewDeleteLeaks and MismatchedDeallocator are the only non-conformant checks, correct?</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:1F718B4B-258E-41D6-9DBE-58E7B5F330EC@apple.com" type="cite" class="">
<div class="">This returns the first checker that handles the
family from the given list.</div>
</blockquote>
Yes, that is how getCheckIfTracked() was designed before, but the
order of the checkers was hardcoded:<br class="">
<small class=""><small class=""> if (ChecksEnabled[CK_MallocOptimistic]) {<br class="">
return CK_MallocOptimistic;<br class="">
} else if (ChecksEnabled[CK_MallocPessimistic]) {<br class="">
return CK_MallocPessimistic;<br class="">
}<br class="">
<br class="">
</small></small>Now it is possible to customize the order in which
the checkers are checked and returned.</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class=""><br class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:1F718B4B-258E-41D6-9DBE-58E7B5F330EC@apple.com" type="cite" class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">+ Optional<CheckKind>
getCheckIfTracked(CheckKind CK,<br class="">
+ AllocationFamily
Family) const;<br class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">This always returns either the input checker or an
empty one. Looks like it should just return a bool...</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I left this to be consistent with other overloads, and also the name
of the method implies that the checker is returned. Do you think the
return value should be changed to bool? And, if yes, do you think
the method should be renamed?<br class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:1F718B4B-258E-41D6-9DBE-58E7B5F330EC@apple.com" type="cite" class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">+ Optional<CheckKind>
getCheckIfTracked(CKVecTy CKVec, <br class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
Hard to tell what this argument is from documentation/name.</div>
</blockquote>
I'll address this!<br class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:1F718B4B-258E-41D6-9DBE-58E7B5F330EC@apple.com" type="cite" class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">+
AllocationFamily
Family) const;<br class="">
+ Optional<CheckKind> getCheckIfTracked(CKVecTy
CKVec, CheckerContext &C,<br class="">
const Stmt
*AllocDeallocStmt) const;<br class="">
- Optional<CheckKind>
getCheckIfTracked(CheckerContext &C, SymbolRef Sym)
const;<br class="">
+ Optional<CheckKind> getCheckIfTracked(CKVecTy
CKVec, CheckerContext &C,<br class="">
+ SymbolRef Sym)
const;<br class="">
///@}<br class="">
static bool SummarizeValue(raw_ostream &os, SVal V);<br class="">
static bool SummarizeRegion(raw_ostream &os, const
MemRegion *MR);<br class="">
@@ -1310,21 +1315,32 @@ ProgramStateRef
MallocChecker::FreeMemAu<br class="">
}<br class="">
<br class="">
Optional<MallocChecker::CheckKind><br class="">
-MallocChecker::getCheckIfTracked(AllocationFamily Family)
const {<br class="">
+MallocChecker::getCheckIfTracked(MallocChecker::CheckKind
CK,<br class="">
+ AllocationFamily Family)
const {<br class="">
+<br class="">
+ if (CK == CK_NumCheckKinds || !ChecksEnabled[CK])<br class="">
+ return Optional<MallocChecker::CheckKind>();<br class="">
+<br class="">
+ // C/C++ checkers.<br class="">
+ if (CK == CK_MismatchedDeallocatorChecker)<br class="">
+ return CK;<br class="">
+<br class="">
switch (Family) {<br class="">
case AF_Malloc:<br class="">
case AF_IfNameIndex: {<br class="">
- if (ChecksEnabled[CK_MallocOptimistic]) {<br class="">
- return CK_MallocOptimistic;<br class="">
- } else if (ChecksEnabled[CK_MallocPessimistic]) {<br class="">
- return CK_MallocPessimistic;<br class="">
+ // C checkers.<br class="">
+ if (CK == CK_MallocOptimistic ||<br class="">
+ CK == CK_MallocPessimistic) {<br class="">
+ return CK;<br class="">
}<br class="">
return Optional<MallocChecker::CheckKind>();<br class="">
}<br class="">
case AF_CXXNew:<br class="">
case AF_CXXNewArray: {<br class="">
- if (ChecksEnabled[CK_NewDeleteChecker]) {<br class="">
- return CK_NewDeleteChecker;<br class="">
+ // C++ checkers.<br class="">
+ if (CK == CK_NewDeleteChecker ||<br class="">
+ CK == CK_NewDeleteLeaksChecker) {<br class="">
+ return CK;<br class="">
}<br class="">
return Optional<MallocChecker::CheckKind>();<br class="">
}<br class="">
@@ -1335,18 +1351,45 @@
MallocChecker::getCheckIfTracked(Allocat<br class="">
llvm_unreachable("unhandled family");<br class="">
}<br class="">
<br class="">
+static MallocChecker::CKVecTy
MakeVecFromCK(MallocChecker::CheckKind CK1,<br class="">
+ MallocChecker::CheckKind CK2 =
MallocChecker::CK_NumCheckKinds,<br class="">
+ MallocChecker::CheckKind CK3 =
MallocChecker::CK_NumCheckKinds,<br class="">
+ MallocChecker::CheckKind CK4 =
MallocChecker::CK_NumCheckKinds) {<br class="">
+ MallocChecker::CKVecTy CKVec;<br class="">
+ CKVec.push_back(CK1);<br class="">
+ if (CK2 != MallocChecker::CK_NumCheckKinds) {<br class="">
+ CKVec.push_back(CK2);<br class="">
+ if (CK3 != MallocChecker::CK_NumCheckKinds) {<br class="">
+ CKVec.push_back(CK3);<br class="">
+ if (CK4 != MallocChecker::CK_NumCheckKinds)<br class="">
+ CKVec.push_back(CK4);<br class="">
+ }<br class="">
+ }<br class="">
+ return CKVec;<br class="">
+}<br class="">
+<br class="">
Optional<MallocChecker::CheckKind><br class="">
-MallocChecker::getCheckIfTracked(CheckerContext &C,<br class="">
- const Stmt
*AllocDeallocStmt) const {<br class="">
- return getCheckIfTracked(getAllocationFamily(C,
AllocDeallocStmt));<br class="">
+MallocChecker::getCheckIfTracked(CKVecTy CKVec,
AllocationFamily Family) const {<br class="">
+ for (auto CK: CKVec) {<br class="">
+ auto RetCK = getCheckIfTracked(CK, Family);<br class="">
+ if (RetCK.hasValue())<br class="">
+ return RetCK;<br class="">
+ }<br class="">
+ return Optional<MallocChecker::CheckKind>();<br class="">
}<br class="">
<br class="">
Optional<MallocChecker::CheckKind><br class="">
-MallocChecker::getCheckIfTracked(CheckerContext &C,
SymbolRef Sym) const {<br class="">
+MallocChecker::getCheckIfTracked(CKVecTy CKVec,
CheckerContext &C,<br class="">
+ const Stmt
*AllocDeallocStmt) const {<br class="">
+ return getCheckIfTracked(CKVec, getAllocationFamily(C,
AllocDeallocStmt));<br class="">
+}<br class="">
<br class="">
+Optional<MallocChecker::CheckKind><br class="">
+MallocChecker::getCheckIfTracked(CKVecTy CKVec,
CheckerContext &C,<br class="">
+ SymbolRef Sym) const {<br class="">
const RefState *RS =
C.getState()->get<RegionState>(Sym);<br class="">
assert(RS);<br class="">
- return getCheckIfTracked(RS->getAllocationFamily());<br class="">
+ return getCheckIfTracked(CKVec,
RS->getAllocationFamily());<br class="">
}<br class="">
<br class="">
bool MallocChecker::SummarizeValue(raw_ostream &os, SVal
V) {<br class="">
@@ -1440,13 +1483,10 @@ void
MallocChecker::ReportBadFree(Checke<br class="">
SourceRange Range, <br class="">
const Expr *DeallocExpr)
const {<br class="">
<br class="">
- if (!ChecksEnabled[CK_MallocOptimistic] &&<br class="">
- !ChecksEnabled[CK_MallocPessimistic] &&<br class="">
- !ChecksEnabled[CK_NewDeleteChecker])<br class="">
- return;<br class="">
-<br class="">
- Optional<MallocChecker::CheckKind> CheckKind =<br class="">
- getCheckIfTracked(C, DeallocExpr);<br class="">
+ auto CheckKind =
getCheckIfTracked(MakeVecFromCK(CK_MallocOptimistic,<br class="">
+
CK_MallocPessimistic,<br class="">
+
CK_NewDeleteChecker),<br class="">
+ C, DeallocExpr);<br class="">
if (!CheckKind.hasValue())<br class="">
return;<br class="">
<br class="">
@@ -1546,13 +1586,11 @@ void
MallocChecker::ReportOffsetFree(Che<br class="">
SourceRange Range,
const Expr *DeallocExpr,<br class="">
const Expr *AllocExpr)
const {<br class="">
<br class="">
- if (!ChecksEnabled[CK_MallocOptimistic] &&<br class="">
- !ChecksEnabled[CK_MallocPessimistic] &&<br class="">
- !ChecksEnabled[CK_NewDeleteChecker])<br class="">
- return;<br class="">
<br class="">
- Optional<MallocChecker::CheckKind> CheckKind =<br class="">
- getCheckIfTracked(C, AllocExpr);<br class="">
+ auto CheckKind =
getCheckIfTracked(MakeVecFromCK(CK_MallocOptimistic,<br class="">
+
CK_MallocPessimistic,<br class="">
+
CK_NewDeleteChecker),<br class="">
+ C, AllocExpr);<br class="">
if (!CheckKind.hasValue())<br class="">
return;<br class="">
<br class="">
@@ -1602,12 +1640,10 @@ void
MallocChecker::ReportOffsetFree(Che<br class="">
void MallocChecker::ReportUseAfterFree(CheckerContext
&C, SourceRange Range,<br class="">
SymbolRef Sym) const
{<br class="">
<br class="">
- if (!ChecksEnabled[CK_MallocOptimistic] &&<br class="">
- !ChecksEnabled[CK_MallocPessimistic] &&<br class="">
- !ChecksEnabled[CK_NewDeleteChecker])<br class="">
- return;<br class="">
-<br class="">
- Optional<MallocChecker::CheckKind> CheckKind =
getCheckIfTracked(C, Sym);<br class="">
+ auto CheckKind =
getCheckIfTracked(MakeVecFromCK(CK_MallocOptimistic,<br class="">
+
CK_MallocPessimistic,<br class="">
+
CK_NewDeleteChecker),<br class="">
+ C, Sym);<br class="">
if (!CheckKind.hasValue())<br class="">
return;<br class="">
<br class="">
@@ -1630,12 +1666,10 @@ void
MallocChecker::ReportDoubleFree(Che<br class="">
bool Released,
SymbolRef Sym, <br class="">
SymbolRef PrevSym)
const {<br class="">
<br class="">
- if (!ChecksEnabled[CK_MallocOptimistic] &&<br class="">
- !ChecksEnabled[CK_MallocPessimistic] &&<br class="">
- !ChecksEnabled[CK_NewDeleteChecker])<br class="">
- return;<br class="">
-<br class="">
- Optional<MallocChecker::CheckKind> CheckKind =
getCheckIfTracked(C, Sym);<br class="">
+ auto CheckKind =
getCheckIfTracked(MakeVecFromCK(CK_MallocOptimistic,<br class="">
+
CK_MallocPessimistic,<br class="">
+
CK_NewDeleteChecker),<br class="">
+ C, Sym);<br class="">
if (!CheckKind.hasValue())<br class="">
return;<br class="">
<br class="">
@@ -1660,13 +1694,10 @@ void
MallocChecker::ReportDoubleFree(Che<br class="">
<br class="">
void MallocChecker::ReportDoubleDelete(CheckerContext
&C, SymbolRef Sym) const {<br class="">
<br class="">
- if (!ChecksEnabled[CK_NewDeleteChecker])<br class="">
- return;<br class="">
-<br class="">
- Optional<MallocChecker::CheckKind> CheckKind =
getCheckIfTracked(C, Sym);<br class="">
+ auto CheckKind =
getCheckIfTracked(MakeVecFromCK(CK_NewDeleteChecker),<br class="">
+ C, Sym);<br class="">
if (!CheckKind.hasValue())<br class="">
return;<br class="">
- assert(*CheckKind == CK_NewDeleteChecker &&
"invalid check kind");<br class="">
<br class="">
if (ExplodedNode *N = C.generateSink()) {<br class="">
if (!BT_DoubleDelete)<br class="">
@@ -1851,24 +1882,13 @@
MallocChecker::getAllocationSite(const E<br class="">
void MallocChecker::reportLeak(SymbolRef Sym, ExplodedNode
*N,<br class="">
CheckerContext &C) const
{<br class="">
<br class="">
- if (!ChecksEnabled[CK_MallocOptimistic] &&<br class="">
- !ChecksEnabled[CK_MallocPessimistic] &&<br class="">
- !ChecksEnabled[CK_NewDeleteLeaksChecker])<br class="">
- return;<br class="">
-<br class="">
- const RefState *RS =
C.getState()->get<RegionState>(Sym);<br class="">
- assert(RS && "cannot leak an untracked symbol");<br class="">
- AllocationFamily Family = RS->getAllocationFamily();<br class="">
- Optional<MallocChecker::CheckKind> CheckKind =
getCheckIfTracked(Family);<br class="">
+ auto CheckKind =
getCheckIfTracked(MakeVecFromCK(CK_MallocOptimistic,<br class="">
+
CK_MallocPessimistic,<br class="">
+
CK_NewDeleteLeaksChecker),<br class="">
+ C, Sym);<br class="">
if (!CheckKind.hasValue())<br class="">
return;<br class="">
<br class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
-----------------------------------<br class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:1F718B4B-258E-41D6-9DBE-58E7B5F330EC@apple.com" type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">- // Special case for new and new[]; these are
controlled by a separate checker<br class="">
- // flag so that they can be selectively disabled.<br class="">
- if (Family == AF_CXXNew || Family == AF_CXXNewArray)<br class="">
- if (!ChecksEnabled[CK_NewDeleteLeaksChecker])<br class="">
- return;<br class="">
-<br class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
-----------------------------------
<blockquote cite="mid:1F718B4B-258E-41D6-9DBE-58E7B5F330EC@apple.com" type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class=""> assert(N);<br class="">
if (!BT_Leak[*CheckKind]) {<br class="">
BT_Leak[*CheckKind].reset(<br class="">
@@ -2479,8 +2499,10 @@ void
MallocChecker::printState(raw_ostre<br class="">
for (RegionStateTy::iterator I = RS.begin(), E =
RS.end(); I != E; ++I) {<br class="">
const RefState *RefS =
State->get<RegionState>(I.getKey());<br class="">
AllocationFamily Family =
RefS->getAllocationFamily();<br class="">
- Optional<MallocChecker::CheckKind> CheckKind =
getCheckIfTracked(Family);<br class="">
-<br class="">
+ auto CheckKind =
getCheckIfTracked(MakeVecFromCK(CK_MallocOptimistic,<br class="">
+
CK_MallocPessimistic,<br class="">
+
CK_NewDeleteChecker),<br class="">
+ Family);<br class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
This is a generic printing routine, which is used for debugging.
Why is this restricted to the specific checkers?</div>
</blockquote>
This particular branch handles leak detecting checkers which are
CK_MallocOptimistic, CK_MallocPessimistic, and CK_NewDeleteChecker.<br class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:1F718B4B-258E-41D6-9DBE-58E7B5F330EC@apple.com" type="cite" class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class=""> I.getKey()->dumpToStream(Out);<br class="">
Out << " : ";<br class="">
I.getData().dump(Out);<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
_______________________________________________<br class="">
cfe-commits mailing list<br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:cfe-commits@cs.uiuc.edu" class="">cfe-commits@cs.uiuc.edu</a><br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits" class="">http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits</a><br class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Anton</pre>
</div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>