Not only global variables can hold references to dead stack variables.
Consider this example:
void write_stack_address_to(char **q) {
char local;
*q = &local;
}
void test_stack() {
char *p;
write_stack_address_to(&p);
}
The address of 'local' is assigned to 'p', which becomes a dangling
pointer after 'write_stack_address_to()' returns.
The StackAddrEscapeChecker was looking for bindings in the store which
referred to variables of the popped stack frame, but it only considered
global variables in this regard. This patch relaxes this, catching
stack variable bindings as well.
---
This patch also works for temporary objects like:
struct Bar {
const int &ref;
explicit Bar(int y) : ref(y) {
// Okay.
} // End of the constructor call, `ref` is dangling now. Warning!
};
void test() {
Bar{33}; // Temporary object, so the corresponding memregion is
// *not* a VarRegion.
}
---
The return value optimization aka. copy-elision might kick in but that
is modeled by passing an imaginary CXXThisRegion which refers to the
parent stack frame which is supposed to be the 'return slot'.
Objects residing in the 'return slot' outlive the scope of the inner
call, thus we should expect no warning about them - except if we
explicitly disable copy-elision.
Reviewed By: NoQ, martong
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107078
Once CFG-side support for argument construction contexts landed in r338436,
the analyzer could make use of them to evaluate argument constructors properly.
When evaluated as calls, constructors of arguments now use the variable region
of the parameter as their target. The corresponding stack frame does not yet
exist when the parameter is constructed, and this stack frame is created
eagerly.
Construction of functions whose body is unavailable and of virtual functions
is not yet supported. Part of the reason is the analyzer doesn't consistently
use canonical declarations o identify the function in these cases, and every
re-declaration or potential override comes with its own set of parameter
declarations. Also it is less important because if the function is not
inlined, there's usually no benefit in inlining the argument constructor.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49443
llvm-svn: 339745
Balazs Benics