| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Introduce the boolean ento::shouldRegister##CHECKERNAME(const LangOptions &LO)
function very similarly to ento::register##CHECKERNAME. This will force every
checker to implement this function, but maybe it isn't that bad: I saw a lot of
ObjC or C++ specific checkers that should probably not register themselves based
on some LangOptions (mine too), but they do anyways.
A big benefit of this is that all registry functions now register their checker,
once it is called, registration is guaranteed.
This patch is a part of a greater effort to reinvent checker registration, more
info here: D54438#1315953
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55424
llvm-svn: 352277
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
to reflect the new license.
We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.
Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.
llvm-svn: 351636
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
ClangCheckerRegistry is a very non-obvious, poorly documented, weird concept.
It derives from CheckerRegistry, and is placed in lib/StaticAnalyzer/Frontend,
whereas it's base is located in lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core. It was, from what I can
imagine, used to circumvent the problem that the registry functions of the
checkers are located in the clangStaticAnalyzerCheckers library, but that
library depends on clangStaticAnalyzerCore. However, clangStaticAnalyzerFrontend
depends on both of those libraries.
One can make the observation however, that CheckerRegistry has no place in Core,
it isn't used there at all! The only place where it is used is Frontend, which
is where it ultimately belongs.
This move implies that since
include/clang/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/ClangCheckers.h only contained a single function:
class CheckerRegistry;
void registerBuiltinCheckers(CheckerRegistry ®istry);
it had to re purposed, as CheckerRegistry is no longer available to
clangStaticAnalyzerCheckers. It was renamed to BuiltinCheckerRegistration.h,
which actually describes it a lot better -- it does not contain the registration
functions for checkers, but only those generated by the tblgen files.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54436
llvm-svn: 349275
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
"the the" -> "the"
llvm-svn: 323078
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Update the GTestChecker to tighten up the API detection and make it
cleaner in response to post-commit feedback. Also add tests for when
temporary destructors are enabled to make sure we get the expected behavior
when inlining constructors for temporaries.
llvm-svn: 290352
|
|
|
gtest is a widely-used unit-testing API. It provides macros for unit test
assertions:
ASSERT_TRUE(p != nullptr);
that expand into an if statement that constructs an object representing
the result of the assertion and returns when the assertion is false:
if (AssertionResult gtest_ar_ = AssertionResult(p == nullptr))
;
else
return ...;
Unfortunately, the analyzer does not model the effect of the constructor
precisely because (1) the copy constructor implementation is missing from the
the header (so it can't be inlined) and (2) the boolean-argument constructor
is constructed into a temporary (so the analyzer decides not to inline it since
it doesn't reliably call temporary destructors right now).
This results in false positives because the analyzer does not realize that the
the assertion must hold along the non-return path.
This commit addresses the false positives by explicitly modeling the effects
of the two un-inlined constructors on the AssertionResult state.
I've added a new package, "apiModeling", for these kinds of checkers that
model APIs but don't emit any diagnostics. I envision all the checkers in
this package always being on by default.
This addresses the false positives reported in PR30936.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27773
rdar://problem/22705813
llvm-svn: 290143
|
