Summary:
This tries to find code similar that immediately destroys
an object that looks like it's trying to follow RAII.
{
scoped_lock(&global_mutex);
critical_section();
}
This checker will have false positives if someone uses this pattern
to legitimately invoke a destructor immediately (or the statement is
at the end of a scope anyway). To reduce the number we ignore this
pattern in macros (this is heavily used by gtest) and ignore objects
with no user-defined destructor.
Reviewers: alexfh, djasper
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D4615
llvm-svn: 213647
This looks for swapped arguments by looking at implicit conversions of arguments
void Foo(int, double);
Foo(1.0, 3); // Most likely a bug
llvm-svn: 212942
The goal is to find code like the example below, which is likely a typo
where someone meant to write "if (*b)".
bool *b = SomeFunction();
if (b) {
// b never dereferenced
}
This checker naturally has a relatively high false positive rate so it
applies some heuristics to avoid cases where the pointer is checked for
nullptr before being written.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D4458
llvm-svn: 212797
This checks that parameters named in comments that appear before arguments in
function and constructor calls match the parameter name used in the callee's
declaration. For example:
void f(int x, int y);
void g() {
f(/*y=*/0, /*z=*/0);
}
contains two violations of the policy, as the names 'x' and 'y' used in the
declaration do not match names 'y' and 'z' used at the call site.
I think there is significant value in being able to check/enforce this policy
as a way of guarding against accidental API misuse and silent breakages
caused by API changes.
Although this pattern appears somewhat frequently in the LLVM codebase,
this policy is not prescribed by the LLVM coding standards at the moment,
so it lives under 'misc'.
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2914
llvm-svn: 204113
Richard Smith