================
@@ -20,48 +20,180 @@
#include "clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/PathSensitive/CallDescription.h"
#include "clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/PathSensitive/CallEvent.h"
#include "clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/PathSensitive/CheckerContext.h"
+#include "clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/PathSensitive/ProgramStateTrait.h"
+#include "clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/PathSensitive/ProgramState_Fwd.h"
+#include "clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/PathSensitive/SVals.h"
+#include "llvm/ADT/STLExtras.h"
+#include "llvm/ADT/SmallString.h"
+#include "llvm/ADT/StringExtras.h"
+
+#include <iterator>
+#include <utility>
+#include <variant>
using namespace clang;
using namespace ento;
namespace {
+
+struct CritSectionMarker {
+ const Expr *LockExpr{};
+ const MemRegion *LockReg{};
+
+ void Profile(llvm::FoldingSetNodeID &ID) const {
+ ID.Add(LockExpr);
+ ID.Add(LockReg);
+ }
+
+ [[nodiscard]] constexpr bool
+ operator==(const CritSectionMarker &Other) const noexcept {
+ return LockExpr == Other.LockExpr && LockReg == Other.LockReg;
+ }
+ [[nodiscard]] constexpr bool
+ operator!=(const CritSectionMarker &Other) const noexcept {
+ return !(*this == Other);
+ }
+};
+
+class FirstArgMutexDescriptor {
+ CallDescription LockFn;
+ CallDescription UnlockFn;
+
+public:
+ FirstArgMutexDescriptor(CallDescription &&LockFn, CallDescription &&UnlockFn)
+ : LockFn(std::move(LockFn)), UnlockFn(std::move(UnlockFn)) {}
+ [[nodiscard]] bool matchesLock(const CallEvent &Call) const {
+ return LockFn.matches(Call) && Call.getNumArgs() > 0;
+ }
+ [[nodiscard]] bool matchesUnlock(const CallEvent &Call) const {
+ return UnlockFn.matches(Call) && Call.getNumArgs() > 0;
+ }
+ [[nodiscard]] const MemRegion *getLockRegion(const CallEvent &Call) const {
+ return Call.getArgSVal(0).getAsRegion();
+ }
+ [[nodiscard]] const MemRegion *getUnlockRegion(const CallEvent &Call) const {
+ return Call.getArgSVal(0).getAsRegion();
+ }
+};
+
+class MemberMutexDescriptor {
+ CallDescription LockFn;
+ CallDescription UnlockFn;
+
+public:
+ MemberMutexDescriptor(CallDescription &&LockFn, CallDescription &&UnlockFn)
+ : LockFn(std::move(LockFn)), UnlockFn(std::move(UnlockFn)) {}
+ [[nodiscard]] bool matchesLock(const CallEvent &Call) const {
+ return LockFn.matches(Call);
+ }
+ bool matchesUnlock(const CallEvent &Call) const {
+ return UnlockFn.matches(Call);
+ }
+ [[nodiscard]] const MemRegion *getLockRegion(const CallEvent &Call) const {
+ return cast<CXXMemberCall>(Call).getCXXThisVal().getAsRegion();
+ }
+ [[nodiscard]] const MemRegion *getUnlockRegion(const CallEvent &Call) const {
+ return cast<CXXMemberCall>(Call).getCXXThisVal().getAsRegion();
+ }
+};
----------------
NagyDonat wrote:
Would it be possible to reduce the code duplication between these by
introducing a common ancestor class?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/80029
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
