MTC added a comment.
In D55388#1322601 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D55388#1322601>, @xazax.hun wrote:
> Hm. I wonder if it would also make sense to model e.g. the get method to
> return nullptr for moved from smart ptrs. This could help null dereference
> checker and also aid false path prunning.
Great idea!
IIRC, we haven't model smart-pointer yet. There are no warnings fired in the
simple code below.
int foo() {
auto ptr = std::make_unique<int>(0);
ptr = nullptr;
return *ptr; // <--------- Should emit a warning here
}
If we want to model the `get()` method, not only the move action but also the
assignment should be considered. `std::unique_ptr` may be fine, but is the
reference count stuff too complex for `std::shared_ptr` to get the information
available for analysis? Can the `lifetime` analysis cover the smart pointers?
int unique_ptr_bad() {
auto ptr = std::make_unique<int>(0);
ptr = nullptr;
int *raw_p = ptr.get(); // <--------- 'raw_p' is definitely null here
return *raw_p; // <--------- Should emit a warning here
}
Related dev-mail about smart pointer checkers, see
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2012-January/019446.html
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D55388/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D55388
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
