[PATCH] D28771: [Analyzer] Various fixes for the IteratorPastEnd checker

[Balogh, Ádám via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

baloghadamsoftware added inline comments.


================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/IteratorPastEndChecker.cpp:530
+  auto value = RVal;
+  if (auto loc = value.getAs<Loc>()) {
+    value = State->getRawSVal(*loc);
----------------
NoQ wrote:
> baloghadamsoftware wrote:
> > NoQ wrote:
> > > Is there a test case for this hack?
> > > 
> > > I'd also consider inspecting the AST (probably before passing the values to `handleRandomIncrOrDecr()`) and making the decision based on that. Because even though this pattern ("if a value is a loc and we expect a nonloc, do an extra dereference") is present in many places in the analyzer, in most of these places it doesn't work correctly (what if we try to discriminate between `int*` and `int*&`?).
> > I just want to get the sign of the integer value (if it is available). It turned out that I cannot do comparison between loc and nonloc. (Strange, because I can do anything else). After I created this hack, the Analyzer did not crash anymore on the llvm/clang code.
> > 
> > I do not fully understand what I should fix here and how? In this particular place we expect some integer, thus no int* or int*&.
> Loc value, essentially, *is* a pointer or reference value. If you're getting a Loc, then your expectations of an integer are not met in the actual code. In this case you *want* to know why they are not met, otherwise you may avoid the crash, but do incorrect things and run into false positives. So i'd rather have this investigated carefully.
> 
> You say that you are crashing otherwise - and then it should be trivial for you to attach a debugger and `dump()` the expression for which you expect to take the integer value, and see why it suddenly has a pointer type in a particular case. From that you'd easily see what to do.
> 
> Also, crashes are often easy to auto-reduce using tools like `creduce`. Unlike false positives, which may turn into true positives during reduction.
> 
> If you still don't see the reason why your workaround is necessary and what exactly it does, could you attach a preprocessed file and an analyzer runline for the crash, so that we could have a look together?
Just to be clear: I know why it crashes without the hack: I simply cannot compare loc and nonloc. Since concrete 0 is nonloc I need another nonloc. I suppose this happens if an integer reference is passed to the operator +, +=, - or -=. So I thought that dereferencing it by getting the raw SVal is the correct thing to do.


================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/IteratorPastEndChecker.cpp:553
+
+  // When increasing by positive or decreasing by negative an iterator past its
+  // end, then it is a bug. We check for bugs before the operator call.
----------------
NoQ wrote:
> baloghadamsoftware wrote:
> > NoQ wrote:
> > > I think incrementing `end()` by `0` is not a bug (?)
> > I think it is not a bug, but how to solve it properly? If I chose just greaterThanZero, then we have the same problem for decrementing end() by 0. Is it worth to create three states here?
> Yep, i believe that indeed, we need three states here. There are three possible cases.
OK, I will do it.


https://reviews.llvm.org/D28771