================
@@ -705,6 +713,30 @@ void MoveChecker::checkPreCall(const CallEvent &Call,
CheckerContext &C) const {
}
}
+ // Calls to explicit-object member functions are represented as ordinary
+ // function calls because they have no implicit 'this' argument. Model an
+ // explicit-object assignment here before handling instance calls below.
+ const auto *ExplicitObjectMethod =
+ dyn_cast_or_null<CXXMethodDecl>(Call.getDecl());
+ if (ExplicitObjectMethod &&
+ ExplicitObjectMethod->isExplicitObjectMemberFunction() &&
+ ExplicitObjectMethod->getOverloadedOperator() == OO_Equal) {
+ const MemRegion *ThisRegion = Call.getArgSVal(0).getAsRegion();
+ State = removeFromState(State, ThisRegion);
+
+ if (ExplicitObjectMethod->isCopyAssignmentOperator() ||
+ ExplicitObjectMethod->isMoveAssignmentOperator()) {
+ const MemRegion *ArgRegion = Call.getArgSVal(1).getAsRegion();
+ const CXXRecordDecl *RD = ExplicitObjectMethod->getParent();
+ MisuseKind MK =
+ ExplicitObjectMethod->isMoveAssignmentOperator() ? MK_Move : MK_Copy;
+ modelUse(State, ArgRegion, RD, MK, C);
+ return;
+ }
+ C.addTransition(State);
+ return;
+ }
----------------
haoNoQ wrote:
> I guess because explicit obj calls are not CXXInstanceCalls. The next
> question is, should it be part of CXXInstanceCalls?
And the next next question is, should the difference between those be erased
entirely when constructing the AST, so that we didn't need to update every
single C++ tool?
But this ship might have already sailed, and/or there may have been some
standar lawyer-y reasons why that's a bad idea.
Yeah I think making it a CXXInstanceCall is the least we can do. Updating every
C++ checker sounds tedious, and remembering this cornercase in the future
sounds even more tedious.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/218303
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
