[clang] [clang][analyzer] Improve BlockInCriticalSectionsChecker (PR #80029)

[via cfe-commits]

================
@@ -20,48 +20,180 @@
 #include "clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/PathSensitive/CallDescription.h"
 #include "clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/PathSensitive/CallEvent.h"
 #include "clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/PathSensitive/CheckerContext.h"
+#include "clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/PathSensitive/ProgramStateTrait.h"
+#include "clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/PathSensitive/ProgramState_Fwd.h"
+#include "clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/PathSensitive/SVals.h"
+#include "llvm/ADT/STLExtras.h"
+#include "llvm/ADT/SmallString.h"
+#include "llvm/ADT/StringExtras.h"
+
+#include <iterator>
+#include <utility>
+#include <variant>
 
 using namespace clang;
 using namespace ento;
 
 namespace {
+
+struct CritSectionMarker {
+  const Expr *LockExpr{};
+  const MemRegion *LockReg{};
+
+  void Profile(llvm::FoldingSetNodeID &ID) const {
+    ID.Add(LockExpr);
+    ID.Add(LockReg);
+  }
+
+  [[nodiscard]] constexpr bool
+  operator==(const CritSectionMarker &Other) const noexcept {
+    return LockExpr == Other.LockExpr && LockReg == Other.LockReg;
+  }
+  [[nodiscard]] constexpr bool
+  operator!=(const CritSectionMarker &Other) const noexcept {
+    return !(*this == Other);
+  }
+};
+
+class FirstArgMutexDescriptor {
+  CallDescription LockFn;
+  CallDescription UnlockFn;
+
+public:
+  FirstArgMutexDescriptor(CallDescription &&LockFn, CallDescription &&UnlockFn)
+      : LockFn(std::move(LockFn)), UnlockFn(std::move(UnlockFn)) {}
+  [[nodiscard]] bool matchesLock(const CallEvent &Call) const {
+    return LockFn.matches(Call) && Call.getNumArgs() > 0;
+  }
+  [[nodiscard]] bool matchesUnlock(const CallEvent &Call) const {
+    return UnlockFn.matches(Call) && Call.getNumArgs() > 0;
+  }
+  [[nodiscard]] const MemRegion *getLockRegion(const CallEvent &Call) const {
+    return Call.getArgSVal(0).getAsRegion();
+  }
+  [[nodiscard]] const MemRegion *getUnlockRegion(const CallEvent &Call) const {
+    return Call.getArgSVal(0).getAsRegion();
+  }
+};
+
+class MemberMutexDescriptor {
+  CallDescription LockFn;
+  CallDescription UnlockFn;
+
+public:
+  MemberMutexDescriptor(CallDescription &&LockFn, CallDescription &&UnlockFn)
+      : LockFn(std::move(LockFn)), UnlockFn(std::move(UnlockFn)) {}
+  [[nodiscard]] bool matchesLock(const CallEvent &Call) const {
+    return LockFn.matches(Call);
+  }
+  bool matchesUnlock(const CallEvent &Call) const {
+    return UnlockFn.matches(Call);
+  }
+  [[nodiscard]] const MemRegion *getLockRegion(const CallEvent &Call) const {
+    return cast<CXXMemberCall>(Call).getCXXThisVal().getAsRegion();
+  }
+  [[nodiscard]] const MemRegion *getUnlockRegion(const CallEvent &Call) const {
+    return cast<CXXMemberCall>(Call).getCXXThisVal().getAsRegion();
+  }
+};
----------------
NagyDonat wrote:

Would it be possible to reduce the code duplication between these by introducing a common ancestor class?

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/80029