ClangCheckerRegistry is a very non-obvious, poorly documented, weird concept.
It derives from CheckerRegistry, and is placed in lib/StaticAnalyzer/Frontend,
whereas it's base is located in lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core. It was, from what I can
imagine, used to circumvent the problem that the registry functions of the
checkers are located in the clangStaticAnalyzerCheckers library, but that
library depends on clangStaticAnalyzerCore. However, clangStaticAnalyzerFrontend
depends on both of those libraries.
One can make the observation however, that CheckerRegistry has no place in Core,
it isn't used there at all! The only place where it is used is Frontend, which
is where it ultimately belongs.
This move implies that since
include/clang/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/ClangCheckers.h only contained a single function:
class CheckerRegistry;
void registerBuiltinCheckers(CheckerRegistry ®istry);
it had to re purposed, as CheckerRegistry is no longer available to
clangStaticAnalyzerCheckers. It was renamed to BuiltinCheckerRegistration.h,
which actually describes it a lot better -- it does not contain the registration
functions for checkers, but only those generated by the tblgen files.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54436
llvm-svn: 349275
Turns out it can't be removed from the analyzer since it relies on CallEvent.
Moving to staticAnalyzer/core
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51023
llvm-svn: 340247
ARCMigrator is using code from RetainCountChecker, which is a layering
violation (and it also does it badly, by using a different header, and
then relying on implementation being present in a header file).
This change splits up RetainSummaryManager into a separate library in
lib/Analysis, which can be used independently of a checker.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50934
llvm-svn: 340114
If we get an item from a dictionary, we know that the item is non-null
if and only if the key is non-null.
This patch is a rather hacky way to record this implication, because
some logic needs to be duplicated from the solver.
And yet, it's pretty simple, performant, and works.
Other possible approaches:
- Record the implication, in future rely on Z3 to pick it up.
- Generalize the current code and move it to the constraint manager.
rdar://34990742
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50124
llvm-svn: 339482
Previously, the checker was using the nullability of the expression,
which is nonnull IFF both receiver and method are annotated as _Nonnull.
However, the receiver could be known to the analyzer to be nonnull
without being explicitly marked as _Nonnull.
rdar://40635584
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47510
llvm-svn: 333612
Changes the analyzer to believe that methods annotated with _Nonnull
from system frameworks indeed return non null objects.
Local methods with such annotation are still distrusted.
rdar://24291919
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44341
llvm-svn: 328282
Kristof Umann