[cfe-dev] [PATCH] Clang Static Analyzer support for temporary destructors

[Alex McCarthy]

And two more patches: the first is the refactor to split out
a getRegionForConstructedObject from ExprEngineCXX.cpp: this can be applied
to head.

The second fixes spurious garbage value warnings when using temporary
destructor analysis. It has to be applied after both the first refactoring
attached to this mail
(0001-Refactor-out-a-getRegionForConstructedObject-helper-.patch) and the
previous patch to add new tests
(0001-Prep-work-for-fixing-C-analysis-handling-of-temporar.patch).

-Alex


On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 8:29 PM, Alex McCarthy <alexmc at google.com> wrote:

> And here's a second patch, to be applied after the first, that fixes the
> crash while processing c++11 initializer lists. Thanks for explaining the
> intent of makeZeroElementRegion: I'm not sure why the FIXME I removed was
> there in the first place, but this seems like a much better fix than the
> one I had before.
>
> -Alex
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Alex McCarthy <alexmc at google.com> wrote:
>
>> Here's a new version of the simple patch. nullptr tests are gone, and
>> I've uncommented tests that generate incorrect warnings. As discussed, I've
>> left a few tests commented out because they trigger crashes or asserts: I
>> think having the tests there but commented out serves as a cheap/poor form
>> of documentation of the current state of these bugs in clang, and it should
>> make upcoming patches that contain fixes smaller and easier to read. Let me
>> know if you'd like me to remove those too.
>>
>> Since I don't have clang/llvm commit access, are you able to commit this
>> on my behalf once this looks good to oyu?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> -Alex
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Jordan Rose <jordan_rose at apple.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 31, 2014, at 10:40, Alex McCarthy <alexmc at google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Thanks for your advice, Jordan.
>>> >
>>> > I've split the NORETURN printing changes to CFG.cpp and the new test
>>> additions into a separate patch (attached). Hopefully this should be a safe
>>> no-op from a behavior perspective: debug output changes slightly, and the
>>> new test cases more accurately reflects current clang behavior. Does this
>>> look safe to commit?
>>>
>>> Rather than commenting out tests, I'd prefer you put them in with the
>>> "wrong" expected-warnings, and then put a FIXME next to the warnings.
>>> Commented-out tests become dead tests all too easily.
>>>
>>> I would drop the tests from nullptr.cpp. That file's for testing nullptr
>>> and nullptr_t specifically, not null pointers in general, and the new tests
>>> don't actually test any new behavior if we already believe that nullptr
>>> properly converts to a null pointer value.
>>>
>>> Jordan
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20140401/e0d9d2a5/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0001-Refactor-out-a-getRegionForConstructedObject-helper-.patch
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 6154 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20140401/e0d9d2a5/attachment.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0002-Fix-spurious-Undefined-or-garbage-value-returned-to-.patch
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 2229 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20140401/e0d9d2a5/attachment-0001.obj>