[llvm-branch-commits] [clang] [SSAF][UnsafeBufferUsage] Implement AST visitor that respects the contribution model (PR #188652)

[Balázs Benics via llvm-branch-commits]

================
@@ -0,0 +1,134 @@
+//===---------------- EntityPointerLevel.h ----------------*- C++ -*-===//
+//
+// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM Exceptions.
+// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information.
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception
+//
+//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+#ifndef LLVM_CLANG_SCALABLESTATICANALYSISFRAMEWORK_ANALYSES_ENTITYPOINTERLEVEL_H
+#define LLVM_CLANG_SCALABLESTATICANALYSISFRAMEWORK_ANALYSES_ENTITYPOINTERLEVEL_H
+
+#include "clang/AST/Decl.h"
+#include "clang/ScalableStaticAnalysisFramework/Core/Model/EntityId.h"
+#include "clang/ScalableStaticAnalysisFramework/Core/Serialization/JSONFormat.h"
+#include <set>
+
+namespace clang::ssaf {
+
+/// An EntityPointerLevel is associated with a level of the declared
+/// pointer/array type of an entity.  In the fully-expanded spelling of the
+/// declared type, a EntityPointerLevel is associated with a '*' (or a '[]`) in
+/// that declaration.
+///
+/// For example, for 'int *p[10];', there are two EntityPointerLevels. One
+/// is associated with 'int *[10]' of 'p' and the other is associated with 'int
+/// *' of 'p'.
+///
+/// An EntityPointerLevel can be identified by an EntityId and an unsigned
+/// integer indicating the pointer level: '(EntityId, PointerLevel)'.
+/// An EntityPointerLevel 'P' is valid iff 'P.EntityId' has a pointer type with
+/// at least 'P.PointerLevel' levels (This implies 'P.PointerLevel > 0').
+///
+/// For the same example 'int *p[10];', the EntityPointerLevels below are valid:
+/// - '(p, 2)' is associated with the 'int *' part of the declared type of 'p';
+/// - '(p, 1)' is associated with the 'int *[10]' part of the declared type of
+/// 'p'.
+class EntityPointerLevel {
----------------
steakhal wrote:

This sounds like a tool for a specific analysis. If so, shouldn't this be in the `UnsafeBufferUsage` directory?

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/188652