Szelethus updated this revision to Diff 161262.
Szelethus added a comment.
Removed a TODO from the checker file.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50904
Files:
lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/UninitializedObject/UninitializedObjectChecker.cpp
www/analyzer/alpha_checks.html
Index: www/analyzer/alpha_checks.html
===================================================================
--- www/analyzer/alpha_checks.html
+++ www/analyzer/alpha_checks.html
@@ -323,6 +323,118 @@
};
</pre></div></div></td></tr>
+<tbody>
+<tr><td><div class="namedescr expandable"><span class="name">
+alpha.cplusplus.UninitializedObject</span><span class="lang">
+(C++)</span><div class="descr">
+This checker reports uninitialized fields in objects created
+after a constructor call. It doesn't only find direct uninitialized
+fields, but rather makes a deep inspection of the object,
+analyzing all of it's fields subfields. <br>
+The checker regards inherited fields as direct fields, so one
+will recieve warnings for uninitialized inherited data members
+as well. <br>
+<br>
+It has several options:
+<ul>
+ <li>
+ "<code>Pedantic</code>" (boolean). If its not set or is set to false, the checker
+ won't emit warnings for objects that don't have at least one initialized
+ field. This may be set with <br>
+ <code>-analyzer-config alpha.cplusplus.UninitializedObject:Pedantic=true</code>.
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ "<code>NotesAsWarnings</code>" (boolean). If set to true, the checker will emit a
+ warning for each uninitalized field, as opposed to emitting one warning
+ per constructor call, and listing the uninitialized fields that belongs
+ to it in notes. Defaults to false. <br>
+ <code>-analyzer-config alpha.cplusplus.UninitializedObject:NotesAsWarnings=true</code>.
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ "<code>CheckPointeeInitialization</code>" (boolean). If set to false, the checker will
+ not analyze the pointee of pointer/reference fields, and will only check
+ whether the object itself is initialized. Defaults to false. <br>
+ <code>-analyzer-config alpha.cplusplus.UninitializedObject:CheckPointeeInitialization=true</code>.
+ </li>
+</ul></div></div></td>
+<td><div class="exampleContainer expandable">
+<div class="example"><pre>
+// With Pedantic and CheckPointeeInitialization set to true
+
+struct A {
+ struct B {
+ int x; // note: uninitialized field 'this->b.x'
+ // note: uninitialized field 'this->bptr->x'
+ int y; // note: uninitialized field 'this->b.y'
+ // note: uninitialized field 'this->bptr->y'
+ };
+ int *iptr; // note: uninitialized pointer 'this->iptr'
+ B b;
+ B *bptr;
+ char *cptr; // note: uninitialized pointee 'this->cptr'
+
+ A (B *bptr, char *cptr) : bptr(bptr), cptr(cptr) {}
+};
+
+void f() {
+ A::B b;
+ char c;
+ A a(&b, &c); // warning: 6 uninitialized fields
+ // after the constructor call
+}
+</pre></div><div class="separator"></div>
+<div class="example"><pre>
+// With Pedantic set to false and
+// CheckPointeeInitialization set to true
+// (every field is uninitialized)
+
+struct A {
+ struct B {
+ int x;
+ int y;
+ };
+ int *iptr;
+ B b;
+ B *bptr;
+ char *cptr;
+
+ A (B *bptr, char *cptr) : bptr(bptr), cptr(cptr) {}
+};
+
+void f() {
+ A::B b;
+ char c;
+ A a(&b, &c); // no warning
+}
+</pre></div><div class="separator"></div>
+<div class="example"><pre>
+// With Pedantic and CheckPointeeInitialization set to false
+// (pointees are regarded as initialized)
+
+struct A {
+ struct B {
+ int x; // note: uninitialized field 'this->b.x'
+ int y; // note: uninitialized field 'this->b.y'
+ };
+ int *iptr; // note: uninitialized pointer 'this->iptr'
+ B b;
+ B *bptr;
+ char *cptr;
+
+ A (B *bptr, char *cptr) : bptr(bptr), cptr(cptr) {}
+};
+
+void f() {
+ A::B b;
+ char c;
+ A a(&b, &c); // warning: 3 uninitialized fields
+ // after the constructor call
+}
+<div class="example"><pre>
+
+
+</pre></div></div></td></tr>
+
</tbody></table>
Index: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/UninitializedObject/UninitializedObjectChecker.cpp
===================================================================
--- lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/UninitializedObject/UninitializedObjectChecker.cpp
+++ lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/UninitializedObject/UninitializedObjectChecker.cpp
@@ -285,18 +285,6 @@
}
// Checking bases.
- // FIXME: As of now, because of `willObjectBeAnalyzedLater`, objects whose
- // type is a descendant of another type will emit warnings for uninitalized
- // inherited members.
- // This is not the only way to analyze bases of an object -- if we didn't
- // filter them out, and didn't analyze the bases, this checker would run for
- // each base of the object in order of base initailization and in theory would
- // find every uninitalized field. This approach could also make handling
- // diamond inheritances more easily.
- //
- // This rule (that a descendant type's cunstructor is responsible for
- // initializing inherited data members) is not obvious, and should it should
- // be.
const auto *CXXRD = dyn_cast<CXXRecordDecl>(RD);
if (!CXXRD)
return ContainsUninitField;
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
