| 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
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52640
llvm-svn: 343353
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In the current implementation, we run visitors until the fixed point is
reached.
That is, if a visitor adds another visitor, the currently processed path
is destroyed, all diagnostics is discarded, and it is regenerated again,
until it's no longer modified.
This pattern has a few negative implications:
- This loop does not even guarantee to terminate.
E.g. just imagine two visitors bouncing a diagnostics around.
- Performance-wise, e.g. for sqlite3 all visitors are being re-run at
least 10 times for some bugs.
We have already seen a few reports where it leads to timeouts.
- If we want to add more computationally intense visitors, this will
become worse.
- From architectural standpoint, the current layout requires copying
visitors, which is conceptually wrong, and can be annoying (e.g. no
unique_ptr on visitors allowed).
The proposed change is a much simpler architecture: the outer loop
processes nodes upwards, and whenever the visitor is added it only
processes current nodes and above, thus guaranteeing termination.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47856
llvm-svn: 335666
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Reviewers: rsmith, sfantao, mcrosier
Reviewed By: mcrosier
Subscribers: jholewinski, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39915
llvm-svn: 318074
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Simplifies and makes explicit the memory ownership model rather than
implicitly passing/acquiring ownership.
llvm-svn: 291143
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Change "use of 'self'..." to "Use of 'self'...". The convention is to
start diagnostics with a capital letter.
rdar://problem/28322494
llvm-svn: 285759
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 262716
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 262520
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 261970
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Change "use of 'self' after it has been freed with call to [super dealloc]" to
"use of 'self' after it has been deallocated" and "use of instance variable
'_ivar' after the instance has been freed with call to [super dealloc]" to
"use of instance variable '_ivar' after 'self' has been deallocated".
llvm-svn: 261945
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
It was using a temporary StringRef after its underlying storage was freed.
llvm-svn: 261944
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Referring to 'self' after a call to [super dealloc] is a use-after-free in
Objective-C because NSObject's -dealloc frees the memory pointed to by self.
This patch extends the ObjCSuperDeallocChecker to catch this error.
rdar://problem/6953275
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17528
llvm-svn: 261935
|
|
|
Add an alpha path checker that warns about duplicate calls to [super dealloc].
This will form the foundation of a checker that will detect uses of
'self' after calling [super dealloc].
Part of rdar://problem/6953275.
Based on a patch by David Kilzer!
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D5238
llvm-svn: 261545
|
