[cfe-dev] [Analyzer] Placement new related checker

[Artem Dergachev via cfe-dev]

I don't see much overlap between your checker and MallocChecker. You 
simply subscribe for PreStmt<CXXNewExpr> and introspect the argument 
region (check extent, maybe origins as well), possibly add a visitor to 
track it. The only thing i see here is that you might want to add 
MallocChecker's visitor to highlight the allocation site for a heap 
memory chunk (if you're placement-new-ing into a heap memory chunk) but 
that visitor is already shared across multiple checkers; and even then, 
you might be able to get away with trackExpressionValue() instead.

On 12/9/19 5:05 AM, Csaba Dabis wrote:
> Hey!
>
> A new idea is rising nowadays to split the checkers into two main
> parts: one for modeling, one for checking for certain issues. In this
> new form the MallocChecker.cpp needs to only contain the modeling. I
> like the idea of having a separated checker for checking.
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 4:58 PM Gábor Márton via cfe-dev
> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am working on a SEI CERT checker (Provide placement new with properly aligned pointers to sufficient storage capacity). This should give reports on the following:
>>
>> #include <new>
>> void f() {
>>    short s;
>>    long *lp = ::new (&s) long; // warning: insufficient storage
>> }
>>
>> First I thought, the best place for the implementation would be in the existing MallocChecker.cpp.
>> However, there are a bunch of classes (e.g. the MallocBugVisitor) which seems to be unrelated and not needed for this new check. Now I am fidgeting because maybe it would be better to have a self-contained independent .cpp file for the implementation. What do you think, what do you suggest?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Gabor
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-dev mailing list
>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev