================
@@ -1954,6 +1954,125 @@ struct TestTryLock {
} // end namespace TrylockTest
+// Regression test for trylock attributes with an enumerator success argument.
+// Prior versions of the analysis silently failed to evaluate success arguments
+// that were neither `CXXBoolLiteralExpr` nor `IntegerLiteral` and assumed the
+// value was false.
+namespace TrylockSuccessEnumFalseNegative {
+
+enum TrylockResult { Failure = 0, Success = 1 };
+
+class LOCKABLE Mutex {
+public:
+ TrylockResult TryLock() EXCLUSIVE_TRYLOCK_FUNCTION(Success);
+ void Unlock() EXCLUSIVE_UNLOCK_FUNCTION();
+};
+
+class TrylockTest {
+ Mutex mu_;
+ int a_ GUARDED_BY(mu_) = 0;
+
+ void test_bool_expression() {
+ if (!mu_.TryLock()) { // expected-note {{mutex acquired here}}
+ a_++; // expected-warning {{writing variable 'a_' requires holding
mutex 'mu_' exclusively}}
+ mu_.Unlock(); // expected-warning {{releasing mutex 'mu_' that was not
held}}
+ }
+ } // expected-warning {{mutex 'mu_' is not held on every path through here}}
+};
+} // namespace TrylockSuccessEnumFalseNegative
+
+// This test demonstrates that the analysis does not distinguish between
+// different non-zero enumerators.
+namespace TrylockFalseNegativeWhenEnumHasMultipleFailures {
+
+enum TrylockResult { Failure1 = 0, Failure2, Success };
+
+class LOCKABLE Mutex {
+public:
+ TrylockResult TryLock() EXCLUSIVE_TRYLOCK_FUNCTION(Success);
+ void Unlock() EXCLUSIVE_UNLOCK_FUNCTION();
+};
+
+class TrylockTest {
+ Mutex mu_;
+ int a_ GUARDED_BY(mu_) = 0;
+
+ void test_eq_success() {
+ if (mu_.TryLock() == Success) {
+ a_++;
+ mu_.Unlock();
+ }
+ }
+
+ void test_bool_expression() {
+ // This branch checks whether the trylock function returned a non-zero
+ // value. This satisfies the analysis, but fails to account for `Failure2`.
+ // From the analysis's perspective, `Failure2` and `Success` are
equivalent!
+ if (mu_.TryLock()) {
+ a_++;
+ mu_.Unlock();
+ }
+ }
+};
+} // namespace TrylockSuccessEnumMultipleFailureModesFalseNegative
+
+
+// This test demonstrates that the analysis does not detect when all
enumerators
+// are positive, and thus incapable of representing a failure.
----------------
aaronpuchert wrote:
positive → non-zero or nonzero.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/95290
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
