[clang] [analyzer] MallocChecker – Fix false positive leak for smart pointers in temporary objects (PR #152751)

[Ivan Murashko via cfe-commits]

ivanmurashko wrote:

Thanks for the review, @NagyDonat. I am still working on addressing the "duplicates the traversal logic" comment and will return to the other comments right after the commit that addresses this major part of the refactoring. Overall, I plan to address all comments by the end of the week and have everything ready for review by Monday.

> 
> I reviewed the tests and added some minor suggestions in the implementation.

Thank you very much. 

> 
> Among my earlier suggestions [the visibility of VisitSymbol](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/152751/files#r2301055454) 

Ah, I am very sorry—it looks like my change was missed there. I will definitely add it.

> and the [complex code duplication question](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/152751/files#r2301561854) are still relevant.
> 
> Moreover I thought about the approach that you currently emphasize "owning" in every name and comment where you speak about smart pointers. As this is not a distinguishing feature of these functions (you never interact with non-owning smart pointers) and these function names tend to be very long, I think it would be better to omit "owning" from these names. It is enough to mention the exclusion of `weak_ptr` in a single comment (next to the function that recognizes the names of the smart pointer classes).

I also had doubts when choosing between the naming: with or without "Owning." I think it will be better to omit the word "Owning" to keep the names as simple as possible.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/152751