diff options
| author | Artem Dergachev <artem.dergachev@gmail.com> | 2019-03-26 00:36:53 +0000 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Artem Dergachev <artem.dergachev@gmail.com> | 2019-03-26 00:36:53 +0000 |
| commit | bef9f8aac31405a2ac069321ad6ab2020d500bad (patch) | |
| tree | a3094a0ec7b213a3f9688cbdc273303101994675 /clang/test/Analysis/initializer.cpp | |
| parent | 210949a221fc7864c8330cb6763c62c88ecebc7f (diff) | |
| download | bcm5719-llvm-bef9f8aac31405a2ac069321ad6ab2020d500bad.tar.gz bcm5719-llvm-bef9f8aac31405a2ac069321ad6ab2020d500bad.zip | |
[CFG] [analyzer] pr41142: C++17: Skip transparent InitListExprs in ExprEngine.
r356634 didn't fix all the problems caused by r356222 - even though simple
constructors involving transparent init-list expressions are now evaluated
precisely, many more complicated constructors aren't, for other reasons.
The attached test case is an example of a constructor that will never be
evaluated precisely - simply because there isn't a constructor there (instead,
the program invokes run-time undefined behavior by returning without a return
statement that should have constructed the return value).
Fix another part of the problem for such situations: evaluate transparent
init-list expressions transparently, so that to avoid creating ill-formed
"transparent" nonloc::CompoundVals.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59622
llvm-svn: 356969
Diffstat (limited to 'clang/test/Analysis/initializer.cpp')
| -rw-r--r-- | clang/test/Analysis/initializer.cpp | 24 |
1 files changed, 19 insertions, 5 deletions
diff --git a/clang/test/Analysis/initializer.cpp b/clang/test/Analysis/initializer.cpp index 5853f3aed56..56b0a09d474 100644 --- a/clang/test/Analysis/initializer.cpp +++ b/clang/test/Analysis/initializer.cpp @@ -1,7 +1,17 @@ -// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -analyzer-checker=core,unix.Malloc,cplusplus.NewDeleteLeaks,debug.ExprInspection -analyzer-config c++-inlining=constructors -std=c++11 -verify %s -// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -analyzer-checker=core,unix.Malloc,cplusplus.NewDeleteLeaks,debug.ExprInspection -analyzer-config c++-inlining=constructors -std=c++17 -DCPLUSPLUS17 -verify %s -// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -analyzer-checker=core,unix.Malloc,cplusplus.NewDeleteLeaks,debug.ExprInspection -analyzer-config c++-inlining=constructors -std=c++11 -DTEST_INLINABLE_ALLOCATORS -verify %s -// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -analyzer-checker=core,unix.Malloc,cplusplus.NewDeleteLeaks,debug.ExprInspection -analyzer-config c++-inlining=constructors -std=c++17 -DCPLUSPLUS17 -DTEST_INLINABLE_ALLOCATORS -verify %s +// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -w -verify %s\ +// RUN: -analyzer-checker=core,unix.Malloc,cplusplus.NewDeleteLeaks\ +// RUN: -analyzer-checker=debug.ExprInspection -std=c++11 +// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -w -verify %s\ +// RUN: -analyzer-checker=core,unix.Malloc,cplusplus.NewDeleteLeaks\ +// RUN: -analyzer-checker=debug.ExprInspection -std=c++17 +// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -w -verify %s\ +// RUN: -analyzer-checker=core,unix.Malloc,cplusplus.NewDeleteLeaks\ +// RUN: -analyzer-checker=debug.ExprInspection -std=c++11\ +// RUN: -DTEST_INLINABLE_ALLOCATORS +// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -w -verify %s\ +// RUN: -analyzer-checker=core,unix.Malloc,cplusplus.NewDeleteLeaks\ +// RUN: -analyzer-checker=debug.ExprInspection -std=c++17\ +// RUN: -DTEST_INLINABLE_ALLOCATORS void clang_analyzer_eval(bool); @@ -232,7 +242,7 @@ void foo() { D d = {}; // no-crash -#ifdef CPLUSPLUS17 +#if __cplusplus >= 201703L C cd = {{}}; // no-crash const C &cdl = {{}}; // no-crash C &&cdr = {{}}; // no-crash @@ -260,4 +270,8 @@ C coo(); void foo2() { C c { coo() }; // no-crash } + +B foo_recursive() { + B b { foo_recursive() }; +} } // namespace CXX17_transparent_init_list_exprs |
