Artem Dergachev via cfe-dev
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu Oct 25 13:32:04 PDT 2018
Ah, my memory of a surgeonfish never fails me.
Yeah, i guess just take it over.
On 10/25/18 2:55 AM, Gábor Horváth wrote:
> Given the lack of recent activity feel free to commandeer the
> revision. I think it should be quite close to be merged.
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 10:30, Alexander Zaitsev <zamazan4ik at tut.by
> <mailto:zamazan4ik at tut.by>> wrote:
> Didn't know that this check is already implemented. I think I can
> continue this work (seems like original author of the change don't
> work on it now). What do you think?
> 25.10.2018 6:34, Gábor Horváth пишет:
>> Do you have something in mind like this:
>> https://reviews.llvm.org/D33672 ?
>> Artem Dergachev via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>> ezt írta (időpont: 2018. okt.
>> 25., Cs 4:32):
>> Your overall plan sounds good, and i believe that such
>> checker will be
>> very useful, i'd love to have such check in the analyzer. If
>> you want to
>> post it upstream, i encourage you to start early by publishing
>> prototypes on Phabricator for code reviews, even when you
>> think they're
>> not ready, just because code reviews are cool!
>> Path-sensitive analysis is indeed useful here because
>> sometimes it's not
>> immediately obvious from the code which values are possible
>> for the
>> sub-expression. Defining the buggy state can be a bit
>> annoying because
>> enum values can be non-contiguous and/or numerous; the former
>> means that
>> you'll potentially need to make a lot of State->assume(...)
>> calls and
>> see if none of the states with assumptions are null; the
>> latter means
>> that you'll need to make sure you identify segments of values
>> to avoid
>> calling assume() for *every* enum item. I also recommend
>> ConstraintManager::assumeInclusiveRange() for direct
>> assumptions over
>> Your questions so far are AST questions, not specific to the
>> First of all, notice that every expression has a (qualified)
>> type, which
>> is the type of the value it evaluates to, and it can always
>> be obtained
>> via Expr::getType(). It may be void (eg., call expression for
>> a function
>> that returns void), but it's always there.
>> For cast-expression, as you might have already guessed, the
>> type of the
>> expression is the target type of the cast. Because, well,
>> that's the
>> whole point of the cast. This takes care of question 2.
>> Most functions return not raw Types but QualType objects that
>> are types
>> with qualifiers. You can always use the overloaded
>> operator->() on the
>> QualType to access the underlying Type; there's also
>> QualType::getTypePtr(), but if you think you need it - most
>> likely you
>> Now, types, like statements or declarations, are a hierarchy.
>> Some types
>> are integer types, some are array or structure types, some
>> are enum
>> types. Enum types are represented by the EnumType class, to
>> which you
>> can try to dyn_cast<>() your type. Or, even better, use
>> which can be accessed directly with operator->() on QualType.
>> If dyn_cast<>()/getAs<>() is successful - your type is an
>> enum and you
>> have a pointer to an EnumType object, so you can call
>> EnumType::getDecl() to find the *declaration* of the enum in
>> the code.
>> Also if the enum hides under a typedef, then the type
>> wouldn't be an
>> EnumType but it'd be a TypedefType, so the cast would fail.
>> The easy way
>> to get rid of typedefs is to do QualType::getCanonicalType().
>> Some declarations are forward declarations. You might need to do
>> EnumDecl::getDefinition() to find the actual definition.
>> Maybe you don't
>> need that: i don't remember what operations are allowed on
>> enum types.
>> Once you have your EnumDecl that is the definition, you can
>> iterate over
>> EnumDecl::enumerators() to see what values are present.
>> In Clang there are a lot more cast kinds of expressions than you
>> probably expect, so you might want to take a look at the list
>> of casts
>> in clang/AST/OperationKinds.def and see which ones do you
>> need; i don't
>> think it'll be important at first, but just in case.
>> In order to quickly catch up on the basics, i also recommend
>> the AST
>> tutorial by Manuel Klimek at
>> On 10/24/18 5:16 PM, Alexander Zaitsev via cfe-dev wrote:
>> > Hello. I am newbie in Clang Static Analyzer and I am trying
>> to write
>> > new Clang Static Analyzer check, which is aimed to find
>> issues with
>> > casting values to enum: if we cast anything which is no
>> presented in
>> > target enum it will be unspecified/undefined
>> behavior(depends on C++
>> > version).
>> > So my plan is:
>> > 1. Find all casts in source code. Seems like
>> > 'check::PreStmt<CastExpr>>' it's what I need.
>> > 2. In my implementation of `checkPreStmt` method I must
>> get target
>> > type from CastExpr, but I don't know, how to do it -
>> can you help
>> > with it?
>> > 3. Then if target type in Cast is Enum, I must get all
>> values from
>> > this Enum and compare it with all possible values which
>> can be
>> > presented by CastExpr->getSubExpr() - here I don't know
>> how to
>> > evaluate CastExpr->getSubExpr() and how to get all
>> values from Enum.
>> > Do you have any ideas?
>> > --
>> > Best regards,
>> > Alexander Zaitsev
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > cfe-dev mailing list
>> > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>> cfe-dev mailing list
>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> Best regards,
> Alexander Zaitsev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cfe-dev