[clang] [analyzer] Suppress out of bounds reports after weak loop assumptions (PR #109804)

[Donát Nagy via cfe-commits]

================
@@ -194,3 +199,99 @@ char test_comparison_with_extent_symbol(struct incomplete *p) {
   return ((char *)p)[-1]; // no-warning
 }
 
+// WeakLoopAssumption suppression
+///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
+
+int GlobalArray[100];
+int loop_suppress_after_zero_iterations(unsigned len) {
+  for (unsigned i = 0; i < len; i++)
+    if (GlobalArray[i] > 0)
+      return GlobalArray[i];
+  // Previously this would have produced an overflow warning because splitting
+  // the state on the loop condition introduced an execution path where the
+  // analyzer thinks that len == 0.
+  // There are very many situations where the programmer knows that an argument
+  // is positive, but this is not indicated in the source code, so we must
+  // avoid reporting errors (especially out of bounds errors) on these
+  // branches, because otherwise we'd get prohibitively many false positives.
+  return GlobalArray[len - 1]; // no-warning
+}
+
+void loop_report_in_second_iteration(int len) {
+  int buf[1] = {0};
+  for (int i = 0; i < len; i++) {
+    // When a programmer writes a loop, we may assume that they intended at
+    // least two iterations.
+    buf[i] = 1; // expected-warning{{Out of bound access to memory}}
+  }
+}
+
+void loop_suppress_in_third_iteration(int len) {
+  int buf[2] = {0};
+  for (int i = 0; i < len; i++) {
+    // We should suppress array bounds errors on the third and later iterations
+    // of loops, because sometimes programmers write a loop in sitiuations
+    // where they know that there will be at most two iterations.
+    buf[i] = 1; // no-warning
----------------
NagyDonat wrote:

In this particular example, they could write an assert, but there are also loops where the condition looks like `opaque_function(i)` and even if the programmer _can_ write an assert, you are not in a position to say that they _must_ write one -- the code is completely valid and normal without it.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/109804