Currently the analyzer lazily models some functions using 'BodyFarm',
which constructs a fake function implementation that the analyzer
can simulate that approximates the semantics of the function when
it is called. BodyFarm does this by constructing the AST for
such definitions on-the-fly. One strength of BodyFarm
is that all symbols and types referenced by synthesized function
bodies are contextual adapted to the containing translation unit.
The downside is that these ASTs are hardcoded in Clang's own
source code.
A more scalable model is to allow these models to be defined as source
code in separate "model" files and have the analyzer use those
definitions lazily when a function body is needed. Among other things,
it will allow more customization of the analyzer for specific APIs
and platforms.
This patch provides the initial infrastructure for this feature.
It extends BodyFarm to use an abstract API 'CodeInjector' that can be
used to synthesize function bodies. That 'CodeInjector' is
implemented using a new 'ModelInjector' in libFrontend, which lazily
parses a model file and injects the ASTs into the current translation
unit.
Models are currently found by specifying a 'model-path' as an
analyzer option; if no path is specified the CodeInjector is not
used, thus defaulting to the current behavior in the analyzer.
Models currently contain a single function definition, and can
be found by finding the file <function name>.model. This is an
initial starting point for something more rich, but it bootstraps
this feature for future evolution.
This patch was contributed by Gábor Horváth as part of his
Google Summer of Code project.
Some notes:
- This introduces the notion of a "model file" into
FrontendAction and the Preprocessor. This nomenclature
is specific to the static analyzer, but possibly could be
generalized. Essentially these are sources pulled in
exogenously from the principal translation.
Preprocessor gets a 'InitializeForModelFile' and
'FinalizeForModelFile' which could possibly be hoisted out
of Preprocessor if Preprocessor exposed a new API to
change the PragmaHandlers and some other internal pieces. This
can be revisited.
FrontendAction gets a 'isModelParsingAction()' predicate function
used to allow a new FrontendAction to recycle the Preprocessor
and ASTContext. This name could probably be made something
more general (i.e., not tied to 'model files') at the expense
of losing the intent of why it exists. This can be revisited.
- This is a moderate sized patch; it has gone through some amount of
offline code review. Most of the changes to the non-analyzer
parts are fairly small, and would make little sense without
the analyzer changes.
- Most of the analyzer changes are plumbing, with the interesting
behavior being introduced by ModelInjector.cpp and
ModelConsumer.cpp.
- The new functionality introduced by this change is off-by-default.
It requires an analyzer config option to enable.
llvm-svn: 216550
definition below all of the header #include lines, clang edition.
If you want more details about this, you can see some of the commits to
Debug.h in LLVM recently. This is just the clang section of a cleanup
I've done for all uses of DEBUG_TYPE in LLVM.
llvm-svn: 206849
Summary:
In clang-tidy we'd like to know the name of the checker producing each
diagnostic message. PathDiagnostic has BugType and Category fields, which are
both arbitrary human-readable strings, but we need to know the exact name of the
checker in the form that can be used in the CheckersControlList option to
enable/disable the specific checker.
This patch adds the CheckName field to the CheckerBase class, and sets it in
the CheckerManager::registerChecker() method, which gets them from the
CheckerRegistry.
Checkers that implement multiple checks have to store the names of each check
in the respective registerXXXChecker method.
Reviewers: jordan_rose, krememek
Reviewed By: jordan_rose
CC: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2557
llvm-svn: 201186
encodes the canonical rules for LLVM's style. I noticed this had drifted
quite a bit when cleaning up LLVM, so wanted to clean up Clang as well.
llvm-svn: 198686
This has the dual effect of (1) enabling more dead-stripping in release builds
and (2) ensuring that debug helper functions aren't stripped away in debug
builds, as they're intended to be called from the debugger.
Note that the attribute is applied to definitions rather than declarations in
headers going forward because it's now conditional on NDEBUG:
/// \brief Mark debug helper function definitions like dump() that should not be
/// stripped from debug builds.
Requires corresponding macro added in LLVM r198456.
llvm-svn: 198489
The path note that says "Loop body executed 0 times" has been changed to
"Loop body skipped when range is empty" for C++11 for-range loops, and to
"Loop body skipped when collection is empty" for Objective-C for-in loops.
Part of <rdar://problem/14992886>
llvm-svn: 194234
Since these aren't lexically in the constructor, drawing arrows would
be a horrible jump across the body of the class. We could still do
better here by skipping over unimportant initializers, but this at least
keeps everything within the body of the constructor.
<rdar://problem/14960554>
llvm-svn: 192818
Re-commit r191910 (reverted in r191936) with layering violation fixed, by
moving the bug categories to StaticAnalyzerCore instead of ...Checkers.
llvm-svn: 191937
Basically, isInMainFile considers line markers, and isWrittenInMainFile
doesn't. Distinguishing between the two is useful when dealing with
files which are preprocessed files or rewritten with -frewrite-includes
(so we don't, for example, print useless warnings).
llvm-svn: 188968
Much of our diagnostic machinery is set up to assume that the report
end path location is valid. Moreover, the user may be quite confused
when something goes wrong in our BodyFarm-synthesized function bodies,
which may be simplified or modified from the real implementations.
Rather than try to make this all work somehow, just drop the report so
that we don't try to go on with an invalid source location.
Note that we still handle reports whose /paths/ go through invalid
locations, just not those that are reported in one.
We do have to be careful not to lose warnings because of this.
The impetus for this change was an autorelease being processed within
the synthesized body, and there may be other possible issues that are
worth reporting in some way. We'll take these as they come, however.
<rdar://problem/14611722>
llvm-svn: 187624
The untemplated implementation of getParents() doesn't need to be in a
header file.
RecursiveASTVisitor.h is full of repeated macro expansion. Moving this
include to ASTContext.cpp speeds up compilation of
LambdaMangleContext.cpp, a small C++ file with few includes, from 3.7s
to 2.8s for me locally. I haven't measured a full build, but it can't
hurt.
I had to fix a few static analyzer files that were depending on
transitive includes of C++ AST headers.
Reviewers: rsmith, klimek
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D982
llvm-svn: 184075
We drew the diagnostic edges to wrong statements in cases the note was on a macro.
The fix is simple, but seems to work just fine for a whole bunch of test cases (plist-macros.cpp).
Also, removes an unnecessary edge in edges-new.mm, when function signature starts with a macro.
llvm-svn: 183599
The function in which we were doing it used to be conditionalized. Add a new unconditional
cleanup step.
This fixes PR16227 (radar://14073870) - a crash when generating html output for one of the test files.
llvm-svn: 183451
Previously our edges were completely broken here; now, the final result
is a very simple set of edges in most cases: one up to the "for" keyword
for context, and one into the body of the loop. This matches the behavior
for ObjC for-in loops.
In the AST, however, CXXForRangeStmts are handled very differently from
ObjCForCollectionStmts. Since they are specified in terms of equivalent
statements in the C++ standard, we actually have implicit AST nodes for
all of the semantic statements. This makes evaluation very easy, but
diagnostic locations a bit trickier. Fortunately, the problem can be
generally defined away by marking all of the implicit statements as
part of the top-level for-range statement.
One of the implicit statements in a for-range statement is the declaration
of implicit iterators __begin and __end. The CFG synthesizes two
separate DeclStmts to match each of these decls, but until now these
synthetic DeclStmts weren't in the function's ParentMap. Now, the CFG
keeps track of its synthetic statements, and the AnalysisDeclContext will
make sure to add them to the ParentMap.
<rdar://problem/14038483>
llvm-svn: 183449
We previously asserted that there was a top-level function entry edge, but
if the function decl's location is invalid (or within a macro) this edge
might not exist. Change the assertion to an actual check, and don't drop
the first path piece if it doesn't match.
<rdar://problem/14070304>
llvm-svn: 183358
The edge optimizer needs to see edges for, say, implicit casts (which have
the same source location as their operand) to uniformly simplify the
entire path. However, we still don't want to produce edges from a statement
to /itself/, which could occur when two nodes in a row have the same
statement location.
This necessitated moving the check for redundant notes to after edge
optimization, since the check relies on notes being adjacent in the path.
<rdar://problem/14061675>
llvm-svn: 183357
...but don't yet migrate over the existing plist tests. Some of these
would be trivial to migrate; others could use a bit of inspection first.
In any case, though, the new edge algorithm seems to have proven itself,
and we'd like more coverage (and more usage) of it going forwards.
llvm-svn: 183165
A.1 -> A -> B
becomes
A.1 -> B
This only applies if there's an edge from a subexpression to its parent
expression, and that is immediately followed by another edge from the
parent expression to a subsequent expression. Normally this is useful for
bringing the edges back to the left side of the code, but when the
subexpression is on a different line the backedge ends up looking strange,
and may even obscure code. In these cases, it's better to just continue
to the next top-level statement.
llvm-svn: 183164
Specifically, if the line is over 80 characters, or if the top-level
statement spans mulitple lines, we should preserve sub-expression edges
even if they form a simple cycle as described in the last commit, because
it's harder to infer what's going on than it is for shorter lines.
llvm-svn: 183163
Generating context arrows can result in quite a few arrows surrounding a
relatively simple expression, often containing only a single path note.
|
1 +--2---+
v/ v
auto m = new m // 3 (the path note)
|\ |
5 +--4---+
v
Note also that 5 and 1 are two ends of the "same" arrow, i.e. they go from
event to event. 3 is not an arrow but the path note itself.
Now, if we see a pair of edges like 2 and 4---where 4 is the reverse of 2
and there is optionally a single path note between them---we will
eliminate /both/ edges. Anything more complicated will be left as is
(more edges involved, an inlined call, etc).
The next commit will refine this to preserve the arrows in a larger
expression, so that we don't lose all context.
llvm-svn: 183162
The old edge builder didn't have a notion of nested statement contexts,
so there was no special treatment of a logical operator inside an if
(or inside another logical operator). The new edge builder always tries
to establish the full context up to the top-level statement, so it's
important to know how much context has been established already rather
than just checking the innermost context.
This restores some of the old behavior for the old edge generation:
the context of a logical operator's non-controlling expression is the
subexpression in the old edge algorithm, but the entire operator
expression in the new algorithm.
llvm-svn: 183160
The current edge-generation algorithm sometimes creates edges from a
top-level statement A to a sub-expression B.1 that's not at the start of B.
This creates a "swoosh" effect where the arrow is drawn on top of the
text at the start of B. In these cases, the results are clearer if we see
an edge from A to B, then another one from B to B.1.
Admittedly, this does create a /lot/ of arrows, some of which merely hop
into a subexpression and then out again for a single note. The next commit
will eliminate these if the subexpression is simple enough.
This updates and reuses some of the infrastructure from the old edge-
generation algorithm to find the "enclosing statement" context for a
given expression. One change in particular marks the context of the
LHS or RHS of a logical binary operator (&&, ||) as the entire operator
expression, rather than the subexpression itself. This matches our behavior
for ?:, and allows us to handle nested context information.
<rdar://problem/13902816>
llvm-svn: 183159
Although we don't want to show a function entry edge for a top-level path,
having it makes optimizing edges a little more uniform.
This does not affect any edges now, but will affect context edge generation
(next commit).
llvm-svn: 183158
In many cases, the edge from the "if" to the condition, followed by an edge from the branch condition to the target code, is uninteresting.
In such cases, we should fold the two edges into one from the "if" to the target.
This also applies to loops.
Implements <rdar://problem/14034763>.
llvm-svn: 183018
...and make this work correctly in the current codebase.
After living on this for a while, it turns out to look very strange for
inlined functions that have only a single statement, and somewhat strange
for inlined functions in general (since they are still conceptually in the
middle of the path, and there is a function-entry path note).
It's worth noting that this only affects inlined functions; in the new
arrow generation algorithm, the top-level function still starts at the
first real statement in the function body, not the enclosing CompoundStmt.
This reverts r182078 / dbfa950abe0e55b173286a306ee620eff5f72ea.
llvm-svn: 182963
