<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="">Anton, <div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I am not convinced. Please, revert the patch until we agree on what is the right thing to do here.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">More comments below.</div><div class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Mar 6, 2015, at 7:03 AM, 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 06.03.2015 8:55, Anna Zaks wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5EEED25F-4278-4399-97AE-6CB660AEACA7@apple.com" type="cite" class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" class="">
<br class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Mar 5, 2015, at 5:37 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="">
<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 class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Here is my very high level description on how this works:</div>
<div class="">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 class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">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>
</blockquote>
The checker is returned back if the family of the given symbol fits
the checker, otherwise no checker is returned.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>I am talking about CK_MismatchedDeallocatorChecker here. This method does not provide us with useful information when processing mismatched deallocators. Don't try to overgeneralize and alter the API to fit in this check. It does not fit by design.</div><div><br class=""></div><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class=""><blockquote cite="mid:5EEED25F-4278-4399-97AE-6CB660AEACA7@apple.com" type="cite" class=""><div 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=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">+ if (CK == CK_MismatchedDeallocatorChecker)<br class="">+ return CK;</div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:5EEED25F-4278-4399-97AE-6CB660AEACA7@apple.com" type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
</div>
<div class="">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>
</blockquote>
As you correctly described 'we call getCheckIfTracked(..) to find
out which check should be used to report the bug'. Old
implementation just returned CK_MallockChecker for AF_Malloc family
and CK_NewDeleteChecker for AF_CXXNew/AF_CXXNewArray families which
is correct only in the case, when CK_MallockChecker and
CK_NewDeleteChecker are 'on' and all other are 'off'. </div></div></blockquote><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class="">I agree, most
reports belong to CK_MallockChecker and CK_NewDeleteChecker
checkers, but why not to make getCheckIfTracked(..) return the
proper check in all cases? </div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>What is the "proper" check? I believe this method should return a single matched check and not depend on the order of checks in the input array, which is confusing and error prone. </div><div>For that we need to decide what to do in cases where there is no 1-to-1 correspondence between families and checkers. There are 2 cases:</div><div> - CK_MismatchedDeallocatorChecker // It is not useful to have the method cover this. I think mismatched deallocator checking should be special cased. (We don't have to call this method every time a bug is reported.)</div><div> - Leaks // We may want to have leaks be reported by separate checks. For that, we can pass a boolean to the getCheckIfTracked to specify if we want leak check or a regular check. It would return MallocChecker for malloc family since the leaks check is not separate there.</div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class="">Consider the use of the new API, for
example, in ReportFreeAlloca(). However much new
checks/checkers/families we add the new API will remain usable.<br class="">
Concerning the CK_NewDeleteLeaksChecker checker, currently
CK_NewDeleteLeaksChecker is considered a part of CK_NewDelete
checker. Technically it is implemented as follows: if
CK_NewDeleteLeaksChecker is 'on' then CK_NewDelete is being
automatically turned 'on'. If this link is broken some day returning
CK_NewDelete by an old API will be incorrect.<br class="">
<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class=""><blockquote cite="mid:5EEED25F-4278-4399-97AE-6CB660AEACA7@apple.com" type="cite" class=""><div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">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. <br class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
You always send the list of checks responsible for the particular
given error and getCheckIfTracked(..) returns (if any) one that is
responsible for the family of the given slmbol/region. If your
report is just for KeychainAPI checker then you send only this
checker and you'll get it back if the family of the given symbol is
tracked by the checker, otherwise no checker is returned. All other
calls will remain unmodified.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>Most calls will need to be modified when this is extended to handle more API families.</div><div>In this patch, you call the method 7 times. In 5 out of 7 calls you pass the same list of 3 regular checkers: CK_MallocOptimistic, CK_MallocPessimistic, CK_NewDeleteChecker. In two cases, you special case: once for leaks and once for reporting double delete. Every time a new family is added, we would need to add it's check to all of the 5 call sites. </div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div></div><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:5EEED25F-4278-4399-97AE-6CB660AEACA7@apple.com" type="cite" class="">
<div class=""><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 class="">
<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 class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">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 class=""><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 class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">NewDeleteLeaks and MismatchedDeallocator are the only
non-conformant checks, correct?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
My understanding is that the family just tells, which API was used
to allocate the memory (Unix, c++, etc), while the checkers are
separated from each other not only by the family they process, but
also by functionality. </div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>The idea is to generalize this as much as possible, so that you could add more families and share the functionality. </div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class="">The family don't necessarily have to be
handled by the particular sole checker. Currently we have:<br class="">
AF_Malloc, AF_Alloca, AF_IfNameIndex: CK_MallocChecker,
CK_MismatchedDeallocatorChecker<br class="">
AF_CXXNew, AF_CXXNewArray: CK_NewDeleteChecker,
CK_NewDeleteLeaksChecker, CK_MismatchedDeallocatorChecker<br class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:5EEED25F-4278-4399-97AE-6CB660AEACA7@apple.com" type="cite" class="">
<div class=""><br class=""></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>This is the view we should have:</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Family | Regular Checker | Leaks checker</div><div><br class=""></div><div>AF_Malloc, AF_Alloca, AF_IfNameIndex: CK_MallocChecker, CK_MallocChecker<br class="">AF_CXXNew, AF_CXXNewArray: CK_NewDeleteChecker, CK_NewDeleteLeaksChecker<br class="">New family CK_NewFamily , CK_NewFamilyLeaks</div><div><br class=""></div><div>CK_MismatchedDeallocatorChecker does not belong to a family. It's point is to find family mismatches.</div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class=""><blockquote cite="mid:5EEED25F-4278-4399-97AE-6CB660AEACA7@apple.com" type="cite" class=""><div 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=""></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>Not sure why we cannot reuse ReportDoubleFree here...</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class=""><blockquote cite="mid:5EEED25F-4278-4399-97AE-6CB660AEACA7@apple.com" type="cite" class=""><div 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=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div 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=""></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>This should ask getCheckIfTracked() return a "leak" check. This would also make it easy to allow malloc leaks to be turned on/off separately.</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class=""><blockquote cite="mid:5EEED25F-4278-4399-97AE-6CB660AEACA7@apple.com" type="cite" class=""><div 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=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div 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=""></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>This is wrong. We've disabled printing for several checks.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class=""><blockquote cite="mid:5EEED25F-4278-4399-97AE-6CB660AEACA7@apple.com" type="cite" class=""><div 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=""><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="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
<br class="">
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Anton</pre>
</div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>