Some template function instantiations don't have a body, even though
their templates did have a body.
Examples are: `std::move`, `std::forward`, `std::addressof` etc.
They had bodies before
72315d02c4
After that change, the sentiment was that these special functions should
be considered and treated as builtin functions.
Fixes#94193
CPP-5358
As my BSc thesis I've implemented a checker for std::variant and
std::any, and in the following weeks I'll upload a revised version of
them here.
# Prelude
@Szelethus and I sent out an email with our initial plans here:
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/analyzer-new-checker-for-std-any-as-a-bsc-thesis/65613/2
We also created a stub checker patch here:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D142354.
Upon the recommendation of @haoNoQ , we explored an option where instead
of writing a checker, we tried to improve on how the analyzer natively
inlined the methods of std::variant and std::any. Our attempt is in this
patch https://reviews.llvm.org/D145069, but in a nutshell, this is what
happened: The analyzer was able to model much of what happened inside
those classes, but our false positive suppression machinery erroneously
suppressed it. After months of trying, we could not find a satisfying
enhancement on the heuristic without introducing an allowlist/denylist
of which functions to not suppress.
As a result (and partly on the encouragement of @Xazax-hun) I wrote a
dedicated checker!
The advantage of the checker is that it is not dependent on the
standard's implementation and won't put warnings in the standard library
definitions. Also without the checker it would be difficult to create
nice user-friendly warnings and NoteTags -- as per the standard's
specification, the analysis is sinked by an exception, which we don't
model well now.
# Design ideas
The working of the checker is straightforward: We find the creation of
an std::variant instance, store the type of the variable we want to
store in it, then save this type for the instance. When retrieving type
from the instance we check what type we want to retrieve as, and compare
it to the actual type. If the two don't march we emit an error.
Distinguishing variants by instance (e.g. MemRegion *) is not the most
optimal way. Other checkers, like MallocChecker uses a symbol-to-trait
map instead of region-to-trait. The upside of using symbols (which would
be the value of a variant, not the variant itself itself) is that the
analyzer would take care of modeling copies, moves, invalidation, etc,
out of the box. The problem is that for compound types, the analyzer
doesn't create a symbol as a result of a constructor call that is fit
for this job. MallocChecker in contrast manipulates simple pointers.
My colleges and I considered the option of making adjustments directly
to the memory model of the analyzer, but for the time being decided
against it, and go with the bit more cumbersome, but immediately viable
option of simply using MemRegions.
# Current state and review plan
This patch contains an already working checker that can find and report
certain variant/any misuses, but still lands it in alpha. I plan to
upload the rest of the checker in later patches.
The full checker is also able to "follow" the symbolic value held by the
std::variant and updates the program state whenever we assign the value
stored in the variant. I have also built a library that is meant to
model union-like types similar to variant, hence some functions being a
bit more multipurpose then is immediately needed.
I also intend to publish my std::any checker in a later commit.
---------
Co-authored-by: Gabor Spaits <gabor.spaits@ericsson.com>
Co-authored-by: Balazs Benics <benicsbalazs@gmail.com>
This patch adds a checker checking `std::string` operations.
At first, it only checks the `std::string` single `const char *`
constructor for nullness.
If It might be `null`, it will constrain it to non-null and place a note
tag there.
Reviewed By: martong
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111247
Summary:
Random access iterators must handle operator+, where the iterator is on the
RHS. The system header simulator library is extended with these operators.
Reviewers: Szelethus
Subscribers: whisperity, xazax.hun, baloghadamsoftware, szepet, a.sidorin, mikhail.ramalho, Szelethus, donat.nagy, dkrupp, Charusso, steakhal, martong, ASDenysPetrov, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83226
Exactly what it says on the tin! The included testfile demonstrates why this is
important -- for C++ dynamic memory operators, we don't always recognize custom,
or even standard-specified new/delete operators as CXXAllocatorCall or
CXXDeallocatorCall.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D77391
The recently committed debug.IteratorDebugging checker enables
standalone white-box testing of the modelling of containers and
iterators. For the three checkers based on iterator modelling only
simple tests are needed.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70123
Range errors (dereferencing or incrementing the past-the-end iterator or
decrementing the iterator of the first element of the range) and access of
invalidated iterators lead to undefined behavior. There is no point to
continue the analysis after such an error on the same execution path, but
terminate it by a sink node (fatal error). This also improves the
performance and helps avoiding double reports (e.g. in case of nested
iterators).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62893
llvm-svn: 370314
Some C++ standard library classes provide additional guarantees about their
state after move. Suppress warnings on such classes until a more precise
behavior is implemented. Warnings for locals are not suppressed anyway
because it's still most likely a bug.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55307
llvm-svn: 349191
Interestingly, this many year old (when I last looked I remember 2010ish)
checker was committed without any tests, so I thought I'd implement them, but I
was shocked to see how I barely managed to get it working. The code is severely
outdated, I'm not even sure it has ever been used, so I'd propose to move it
back into alpha, and possibly even remove it.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53856
llvm-svn: 345990
This patch adds support for the following operations in the iterator checkers: assign, clear, insert, insert_after, emplace, emplace_after, erase and erase_after. This affects mismatched iterator checks ("this" and parameter must match) and invalidation checks (according to the standard).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32904
llvm-svn: 341794
This patch adds support for the following operations in the iterator checkers: push_back, push_front, emplace_back, emplace_front, pop_back and pop_front. This affects iterator range checks (range is extended after push and emplace and reduced after pop operations) and invalidation checks (according to the standard).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32902
llvm-svn: 341793
We add check for invalidation of iterators. The only operation we handle here
is the (copy) assignment.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32747
llvm-svn: 340805
Add handling of the begin() funcion of containers to the iterator checkers,
together with the pre- and postfix ++ and -- operators of the iterators. This
makes possible the checking of iterators dereferenced ahead of the begin of the
container.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32642
llvm-svn: 335835
The new checker currently contains the very core infrastructure for tracking
the state of iterator-type objects in the analyzer: relating iterators to
their containers, tracking symbolic begin and end iterator values for
containers, and solving simple equality-type constraints over iterators.
A single specific check over this infrastructure is capable of finding usage of
out-of-range iterators in some simple cases.
Patch by Ádám Balogh!
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32592
llvm-svn: 304160
We have several reports of false positives coming from libc++. For example,
there are reports of false positives in std::regex, std::wcout, and also
a bunch of issues are reported in https://reviews.llvm.org/D30593. In many
cases, the analyzer trips over the complex libc++ code invariants. Let's turn
off the reports coming from these headers until we can re-evalate the support.
We can turn this back on once we individually suppress all known false
positives and perform deeper evaluation on large codebases that use libc++.
We'd also need to commit to doing these evaluations regularly as libc++
headers change.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30798
llvm-svn: 297429
Now that the libcpp implementations of these methods has a branch that doesn't call
memmove(), the analyzer needs to invalidate the destination for these methods explicitly.
rdar://problem/23575656
llvm-svn: 260043
Previously, the use of a std::initializer_list (actually, a
CXXStdInitializerListExpr) would cause the analyzer to give up on the rest
of the path. Now, it just uses an opaque symbolic value for the
initializer_list and continues on.
At some point in the future we can add proper support for initializer_list,
with access to the elements in the InitListExpr.
<rdar://problem/14340207>
llvm-svn: 186519
VerifyDiagnosticConsumer previously would not check that the diagnostic and
its matching directive referenced the same source file. Common practice was
to create directives that referenced other files but only by line number,
and this led to problems such as when the file containing the directive
didn't have enough lines to match the location of the diagnostic in the
other file, leading to bizarre file formatting and other oddities.
This patch causes VerifyDiagnosticConsumer to match source files as well as
line numbers. Therefore, a new syntax is made available for directives, for
example:
// expected-error@file:line {{diagnostic message}}
This extends the @line feature where "file" is the file where the diagnostic
is generated. The @line syntax is still available and uses the current file
for the diagnostic. "file" can be specified either as a relative or absolute
path - although the latter has less usefulness, I think! The #include search
paths will be used to locate the file and if it is not found an error will be
generated.
The new check is not optional: if the directive is in a different file to the
diagnostic, the file must be specified. Therefore, a number of test-cases
have been updated with regard to this.
This closes out PR15613.
llvm-svn: 179677
This is a heuristic to make up for the fact that the analyzer doesn't
model C++ containers very well. One example is modeling that
'std::distance(I, E) == 0' implies 'I == E'. In the future, it would be
nice to model this explicitly, but for now it just results in a lot of
false positives.
The actual heuristic checks if the base type has a member named 'begin' or
'iterator'. If so, we treat the constructors and destructors of that type
as opaque, rather than inlining them.
This is intended to drastically reduce the number of false positives
reported with experimental destructor support turned on. We can tweak the
heuristic in the future, but we'd rather err on the side of false negatives
for now.
<rdar://problem/13497258>
llvm-svn: 178516
This is controlled by the 'suppress-c++-stdlib' analyzer-config flag.
It is currently off by default.
This is more suppression than we'd like to do, since obviously there can
be user-caused issues within 'std', but it gives us the option to wield
a large hammer to suppress false positives the user likely can't work
around.
llvm-svn: 178513
