[clang] [clang][analyzer] Add StoreToImmutable checker (PR #150417)
DonĂ¡t Nagy via cfe-commits
cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org
Wed Jul 30 07:09:08 PDT 2025
================
@@ -29,11 +30,59 @@ class StoreToImmutableChecker : public Checker<check::Bind> {
void checkBind(SVal Loc, SVal Val, const Stmt *S, CheckerContext &C) const;
private:
+ bool isInitializationContext(const Stmt *S, CheckerContext &C) const;
bool isEffectivelyConstRegion(const MemRegion *MR, CheckerContext &C) const;
- bool isConstQualifiedType(const MemRegion *MR, CheckerContext &C) const;
};
} // end anonymous namespace
+bool StoreToImmutableChecker::isInitializationContext(const Stmt *S,
+ CheckerContext &C) const {
+ // Check if this is a DeclStmt (variable declaration)
+ if (isa<DeclStmt>(S))
+ return true;
+
+ // This part is specific for initialization of const lambdas pre-C++17.
+ // Lets look at the AST of the statement:
+ // ```
+ // const auto lambda = [](){};
+ // ```
+ //
+ // The relevant part of the AST for this case prior to C++17 is:
+ // ...
+ // `-DeclStmt
+ // `-VarDecl
+ // `-ExprWithCleanups
+ // `-CXXConstructExpr
+ // ...
+ // In C++17 and later, the AST is different:
+ // ...
+ // `-DeclStmt
+ // `-VarDecl
+ // `-ImplicitCastExpr
+ // `-LambdaExpr
+ // |-CXXRecordDecl
+ // `-CXXConstructExpr
+ // ...
+ // And even beside this, the statement `S` that is given to the checkBind
+ // callback is the VarDecl in C++17 and later, and the CXXConstructExpr in
+ // C++14 and before. So in order to support the C++14 we need the following
+ // ugly hack to detect whether this construction is used to initialize a
+ // variable.
+ //
+ // FIXME: This should be eliminated once the API of checkBind would allow to
+ // distinguish between initialization and assignment, because this information
+ // is already available in the engine, it is just not passed to the checker
+ // API.
+ if (!isa<CXXConstructExpr>(S))
+ return false;
+
+ // We use elidable construction to detect initialization.
+ if (cast<CXXConstructExpr>(S)->isElidable())
+ return true;
+
+ return false;
----------------
NagyDonat wrote:
Yep, this is a good suggestion -- I also felt that these lines could and should be simplified, but I wasn't able to find this solution immediately.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/150417
More information about the cfe-commits
mailing list