[cfe-commits] r155615 - in /cfe/trunk: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/RegionStore.cpp test/Analysis/malloc.c
Ted Kremenek
kremenek at apple.com
Wed Apr 25 22:08:26 PDT 2012
Author: kremenek
Date: Thu Apr 26 00:08:26 2012
New Revision: 155615
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=155615&view=rev
Log:
[analyzer] check lazy bindings in RegionStore first before looking for default values. Fixes <rdar://problem/11269741>.
Modified:
cfe/trunk/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/RegionStore.cpp
cfe/trunk/test/Analysis/malloc.c
Modified: cfe/trunk/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/RegionStore.cpp
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/RegionStore.cpp?rev=155615&r1=155614&r2=155615&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- cfe/trunk/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/RegionStore.cpp (original)
+++ cfe/trunk/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/RegionStore.cpp Thu Apr 26 00:08:26 2012
@@ -1274,7 +1274,15 @@
// At this point we have already checked in either getBindingForElement or
// getBindingForField if 'R' has a direct binding.
RegionBindings B = GetRegionBindings(store);
+
+ // Lazy binding?
+ Store lazyBindingStore = NULL;
+ const MemRegion *lazyBindingRegion = NULL;
+ llvm::tie(lazyBindingStore, lazyBindingRegion) = GetLazyBinding(B, R, R);
+ if (lazyBindingRegion)
+ return getLazyBinding(lazyBindingRegion, lazyBindingStore);
+
// Record whether or not we see a symbolic index. That can completely
// be out of scope of our lookup.
bool hasSymbolicIndex = false;
@@ -1299,14 +1307,6 @@
break;
}
- // Lazy binding?
- Store lazyBindingStore = NULL;
- const MemRegion *lazyBindingRegion = NULL;
- llvm::tie(lazyBindingStore, lazyBindingRegion) = GetLazyBinding(B, R, R);
-
- if (lazyBindingRegion)
- return getLazyBinding(lazyBindingRegion, lazyBindingStore);
-
if (R->hasStackNonParametersStorage()) {
if (isa<ElementRegion>(R)) {
// Currently we don't reason specially about Clang-style vectors. Check
Modified: cfe/trunk/test/Analysis/malloc.c
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/Analysis/malloc.c?rev=155615&r1=155614&r2=155615&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- cfe/trunk/test/Analysis/malloc.c (original)
+++ cfe/trunk/test/Analysis/malloc.c Thu Apr 26 00:08:26 2012
@@ -760,6 +760,22 @@
return;
}
+// <rdar://problem/11269741> Previously this triggered a false positive
+// because malloc() is known to return uninitialized memory and the binding
+// of 'o' to 'p->n' was not getting propertly handled. Now we report a leak.
+struct rdar11269741_a_t {
+ struct rdar11269741_b_t {
+ int m;
+ } n;
+};
+
+int rdar11269741(struct rdar11269741_b_t o)
+{
+ struct rdar11269741_a_t *p = (struct rdar11269741_a_t *) malloc(sizeof(*p));
+ p->n = o;
+ return p->n.m; // expected-warning {{leak}}
+}
+
// ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
// Below are the known false positives.
More information about the cfe-commits
mailing list