In order to provide more test coverage for inlined operator new(), add more
run-lines to existing test cases, which would trigger our fake header
to provide a body for operator new(). Most of the code should still behave
reasonably. When behavior intentionally changes, #ifs are provided.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42221
llvm-svn: 323376
This silences false positives (leaks, use of uninitialized value) in simple
code that uses containers such as std::vector and std::list. The analyzer
cannot reason about the internal invariances of those data structures which
leads to false positives. Until we come up with a better solution to that
problem, let's just not inline the methods of the containers and allow objects
to escape whenever such methods are called.
This just extends an already existing flag "c++-container-inlining" and applies
the heuristic not only to constructors and destructors of the containers, but
to all of their methods.
We have a bunch of distinct user reports all related to this issue
(radar://16058651, radar://16580751, radar://16384286, radar://16795491
[PR19637]).
llvm-svn: 211832
This goes with r178516, which instructed the analyzer not to inline the
constructors and destructors of C++ container classes. This goes a step
further and does the same thing for iterators, so that the analyzer won't
falsely decide we're trying to construct an iterator pointing to a
nonexistent element.
The heuristic for determining whether something is an iterator is the
presence of an 'iterator_category' member. This is controlled under the
same -analyzer-config option as container constructor/destructor inlining:
'c++-container-inlining'.
<rdar://problem/13770187>
llvm-svn: 180890
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
George Karpenkov