I'm trying to remove unused options from the `Analyses.def` file, then
merge the rest of the useful options into the `AnalyzerOptions.def`.
Then make sure one can set these by an `-analyzer-config XXX=YYY` style
flag.
Then surface the `-analyzer-config` to the `clang` frontend;
After all of this, we can pursue the tablegen approach described
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-tablegen-clang-static-analyzer-engine-options-for-better-documentation/61488
In this patch, I'm proposing flag deprecations.
We should support deprecated analyzer flags for exactly one release. In
this case I'm planning to drop this flag in `clang-16`.
In the clang frontend, now we won't pass this option to the cc1
frontend, rather emit a warning diagnostic reminding the users about
this deprecated flag, which will be turned into error in clang-16.
Unfortunately, I had to remove all the tests referring to this flag,
causing a mass change. I've also added a test for checking this warning.
I've seen that `scan-build` also uses this flag, but I think we should
remove that part only after we turn this into a hard error.
Reviewed By: martong
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D126215
I'm trying to remove unused options from the `Analyses.def` file, then
merge the rest of the useful options into the `AnalyzerOptions.def`.
Then make sure one can set these by an `-analyzer-config XXX=YYY` style
flag.
Then surface the `-analyzer-config` to the `clang` frontend;
After all of this, we can pursue the tablegen approach described
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-tablegen-clang-static-analyzer-engine-options-for-better-documentation/61488
In this patch, I'm proposing flag deprecations.
We should support deprecated analyzer flags for exactly one release. In
this case I'm planning to drop this flag in `clang-16`.
In the clang frontend, now we won't pass this option to the cc1
frontend, rather emit a warning diagnostic reminding the users about
this deprecated flag, which will be turned into error in clang-16.
Unfortunately, I had to remove all the tests referring to this flag,
causing a mass change. I've also added a test for checking this warning.
I've seen that `scan-build` also uses this flag, but I think we should
remove that part only after we turn this into a hard error.
Reviewed By: martong
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D126215
In the following example:
int va_list_get_int(va_list *va) {
return va_arg(*va, int); // FP
}
The `*va` expression will be something like `Element{SymRegion{va}, 0, va_list}`.
We use `ElementRegions` for representing the result of the dereference.
In this case, the `IsSymbolic` was set to `false` in the
`getVAListAsRegion()`.
Hence, before checking if the memregion is a SymRegion, we should take
the base of that region.
Analogously to the previous example, one can craft other cases:
struct MyVaList {
va_list l;
};
int va_list_get_int(struct MyVaList va) {
return va_arg(va.l, int); // FP
}
But it would also work if the `va_list` would be in the base or derived
part of a class. `ObjCIvarRegions` are likely also susceptible.
I'm not explicitly demonstrating these cases.
PS: Check the `MemRegion::getBaseRegion()` definition.
Fixes#55009
Reviewed By: xazax.hun
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D124239
It looks like on some host-triples the result of a valist related expr can be
a LazyCompoundVal. Handle that case in the check.
Patch by Abramo Bagnara!
llvm-svn: 297619
This patch makes the valist check more robust to the different AST variants on
different platforms and also fixes a FIXME.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30157
llvm-svn: 297153
Balazs Benics