This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rC322787: [analyzer] operator new: Add a new checker callback,
check::NewAllocator. (authored by dergachev, committed by ).
Changed prior to commit:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41406?vs=129369&id=130304#toc
NoQ updated this revision to Diff 129369.
NoQ added a comment.
Rebase (getter rename).
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41406
Files:
include/clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/Checker.h
include/clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/CheckerManager.h
lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/CheckerDocumentation.cpp
lib/StaticAna
NoQ added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41406#970985, @xazax.hun wrote:
> Do you have a plan for the new false negatives when `c++-allocator-inlining`
> is on? Should the user mark allocation functions with attributes?
Not immediately - the immediate plan is to simply believe that we
NoQ updated this revision to Diff 129214.
NoQ marked 6 inline comments as done.
NoQ added a comment.
Address review comments. Stick to the callback approach for now.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41406
Files:
include/clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/Checker.h
include/clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/CheckerM
NoQ added inline comments.
Comment at: include/clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/CheckerManager.h:311
+ ExprEngine &Eng,
+ bool wasInlined = false);
+
dcoughlin wrote:
> Does 'wasInlined' really need to ha
NoQ added a comment.
But still, i guess, it is also easier for checker authors to discover a checker
callback (it's right there in the `CheckerDocumentation`, which is short enough
to read fully) than to discover a `CallEvent` sub-class (which was so hard that
i never discovered it until like n
NoQ added a comment.
> Like, make a new `CallEvent` sub-class called, say, `CXXNewAllocatorCall`
Oh, we already have it (`CXXAllocatorCall`).
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41406
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.
NoQ added a comment.
> which would re-evaluate the cast and return the casted object
Rather not. Because i'm changing my mind again about avoiding the redundant
cast in `&element{T, HeapSymRegion{conj}}` - this time by not calling
`evalCast` after a conservatively evaluated operator new call (t
NoQ added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41406#970985, @xazax.hun wrote:
> Also, I was wondering if it would make sense to only have the PostCall
> callback return the casted memory region in these specific cases instead of
> introducing a new callback.
Yep, i actually think it's a v
xazax.hun added a comment.
Do you have a plan for the new false negatives when `c++-allocator-inlining` is
on? Should the user mark allocation functions with attributes?
Also, I was wondering if it would make sense to only have the PostCall callback
return the casted memory region in these spec
dcoughlin accepted this revision.
dcoughlin added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Looks good to me with some minor nits inside (and also a request to consider
factoring out common code).
Comment at: include/clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/CheckerManager.h
NoQ added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41406#960824, @xazax.hun wrote:
> Maybe `debug.AnalysisOrder` could be used to test the callback order
> explicitly. This way the test could also serve as a documentation for the
> callback order.
Yep, totally, will do.
https://reviews.llvm.
xazax.hun added a comment.
Maybe `debug.AnalysisOrder` could be used to test the callback order
explicitly. This way the test could also serve as a documentation for the
callback order.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41406
___
cfe-commits mailing list
NoQ added a comment.
TODOs for the future commits:
- Constructor shouldn't cause pointer escape of the newly allocated pointer
immediately after the NewAllocator callback, otherwise we ain't gonna find no
leaks. Without `c++-allocator-inlining`, we only started tracking the pointer
after the c
NoQ updated this revision to Diff 127579.
NoQ added a comment.
- Actually call the new callback when the allocator call is inlined.
- Update checker documentation :)
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41406
Files:
include/clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/Checker.h
include/clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/CheckerM
NoQ created this revision.
NoQ added reviewers: dcoughlin, xazax.hun, a.sidorin, george.karpenkov, szepet.
Herald added a subscriber: rnkovacs.
This patch is roughly based on the discussion we've had in
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2017-December/056314.html about how our
support for C
16 matches
Mail list logo
