================
@@ -10,3 +12,42 @@ void block_arity_mismatch() {
void(^b)() = ^(int a, int b) { };
b(1); // no-crash expected-warning {{Block taking 2 arguments is called
with fewer (1)}}
}
+
+int *nonnull_return_annotation_indirect() __attribute__((returns_nonnull));
+int *nonnull_return_annotation_indirect() {
+ int *x = 0;
+ return x; // expected-warning {{Null returned from a function that is
expected to return a non-null value}}
+}
+
+int *nonnull_return_annotation_direct() __attribute__((returns_nonnull));
+int *nonnull_return_annotation_direct() {
+ return 0; // expected-warning {{Null returned from a function that is
expected to return a non-null value}}
+} // expected-warning@-1 {{null returned from function that requires a
non-null return value}}
+
+int *nonnull_return_annotation_assumed() __attribute__((returns_nonnull));
+int *nonnull_return_annotation_assumed(int* ptr) {
+ if (ptr) {
+ return ptr;
+ }
+ return ptr; // expected-warning {{Null returned from a function that is
expected to return a non-null value}}
+}
+
+int *produce_nonnull_ptr() __attribute__((returns_nonnull));
+
+__attribute__((returns_nonnull))
+int *cannot_return_null() {
+ int *x = produce_nonnull_ptr();
+ if (!x) {
+ clang_analyzer_warnIfReached();
+ // Incorrect: expected-warning@-1 {{REACHABLE}}
+ // According to produce_nonnull_ptr contract, x cannot be null.
+ }
+ // Regardless of the potential state split above, x cannot be nullptr
+ // according to the produce_nonnull_ptr annotation.
+ return x;
+ // False positive: expected-warning@-1 {{Null returned from a function that
is expected to return a non-null value}}
+}
+
+__attribute__((returns_nonnull)) int *passthrough(int *p) {
+ return p; // no-warning: we have no evidence that `p` is null, i.e.,
violating the contract
+}
----------------
necto wrote:
Added in 3d5e750aec0d
However, it did not trigger because of an explicit suppression of the reports
in inlined functions:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/49bd58f1ebe28d97e4949e9c757bc5dfd8b2d72f
I believe the reasoning for that suppression no longer holds, so I lifted the
suppression: 598c574e0703
Do you agree? If so, do you think it should be done in a separate change set?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/106048
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
