[PATCH] D77474: [analyzer][MallocChecker] Make NewDeleteLeaks depend on DynamicMemoryModeling rather than NewDelete

[Kristóf Umann via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

Szelethus added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/PathSensitive/CheckerContext.h:195
+    // Say this 3 times fast.
+    State = State ? State : getState();
+    addTransition(State, generateSink(State, getPredecessor()));
----------------
martong wrote:
> balazske wrote:
> > ```
> > if (!State)
> >   State = getState();
> > ```
> > is better? (I put the same comment into some (other?) patch already but maybe it disappeared?)
> +1 for balazske's suggestion.
Landed this part of the change in D77866.


================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/MallocChecker.cpp:2024
+  if (!ChecksEnabled[CK_MallocChecker] && !ChecksEnabled[CK_NewDeleteChecker]) {
+    C.addSink();
     return;
----------------
martong wrote:
> This seems to be inverse logic to me.
> I'd expect that in a function called `Report...` we do stuff that is related to reporting only. That is why I think it would be better to have the condition and addSink before calling `Report...`. That way reporting and modeling would be even more separated.
Very good point, but I think the actual problem lies in the name of the method. `ReportBadFree` in particular is called from multiple places, and I like how this is the function that takes over once we find a bug, because a bad free (which in this context means the deallocation of a non-heap allocated object) can never be a non-fatal error, so it make sense that the sink is solved here.


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D77474/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D77474