This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rC351609: [analyzer] Do not try to body-farm Objective-C
properties with custom accessors. (authored by dergachev, committed by ).
Repository:
rC Clang
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D56823/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D56823
Files:
lib/Analysis/BodyFarm.cpp
test/Analysis/properties.m
Index: test/Analysis/properties.m
===================================================================
--- test/Analysis/properties.m
+++ test/Analysis/properties.m
@@ -1005,3 +1005,38 @@
#endif // non-ARC
+@interface ExplicitAccessorInCategory : NSObject
+@property(readonly) int normal;
+- (int)normal;
+@property(readonly) int no_custom_accessor;
+@end
+
+@interface ExplicitAccessorInCategory ()
+@property(readonly) int in_category;
+
+@property(readonly) int still_no_custom_accessor;
+// This is an ordinary method, not a getter.
+- (int)still_no_custom_accessor;
+@end
+
+@interface ExplicitAccessorInCategory ()
+- (int)in_category;
+
+// This is an ordinary method, not a getter.
+- (int)no_custom_accessor;
+@end
+
+@implementation ExplicitAccessorInCategory
+- (void)foo {
+ // Make sure we don't farm bodies for explicit accessors: in particular,
+ // we're not sure that the accessor always returns the same value.
+ clang_analyzer_eval(self.normal == self.normal); //
expected-warning{{UNKNOWN}}
+ // Also this used to crash.
+ clang_analyzer_eval(self.in_category == self.in_category); //
expected-warning{{UNKNOWN}}
+
+ // When there is no explicit accessor defined (even if it looks like
there is),
+ // farm the getter body and see if it does actually always yield the
same value.
+ clang_analyzer_eval(self.no_custom_accessor ==
self.no_custom_accessor); // expected-warning{{TRUE}}
+ clang_analyzer_eval(self.still_no_custom_accessor ==
self.still_no_custom_accessor); // expected-warning{{TRUE}}
+}
+@end
Index: lib/Analysis/BodyFarm.cpp
===================================================================
--- lib/Analysis/BodyFarm.cpp
+++ lib/Analysis/BodyFarm.cpp
@@ -807,6 +807,11 @@
D = D->getCanonicalDecl();
+ // We should not try to synthesize explicitly redefined accessors.
+ // We do not know for sure how they behave.
+ if (!D->isImplicit())
+ return nullptr;
+
Optional<Stmt *> &Val = Bodies[D];
if (Val.hasValue())
return Val.getValue();
Index: test/Analysis/properties.m
===================================================================
--- test/Analysis/properties.m
+++ test/Analysis/properties.m
@@ -1005,3 +1005,38 @@
#endif // non-ARC
+@interface ExplicitAccessorInCategory : NSObject
+@property(readonly) int normal;
+- (int)normal;
+@property(readonly) int no_custom_accessor;
+@end
+
+@interface ExplicitAccessorInCategory ()
+@property(readonly) int in_category;
+
+@property(readonly) int still_no_custom_accessor;
+// This is an ordinary method, not a getter.
+- (int)still_no_custom_accessor;
+@end
+
+@interface ExplicitAccessorInCategory ()
+- (int)in_category;
+
+// This is an ordinary method, not a getter.
+- (int)no_custom_accessor;
+@end
+
+@implementation ExplicitAccessorInCategory
+- (void)foo {
+ // Make sure we don't farm bodies for explicit accessors: in particular,
+ // we're not sure that the accessor always returns the same value.
+ clang_analyzer_eval(self.normal == self.normal); // expected-warning{{UNKNOWN}}
+ // Also this used to crash.
+ clang_analyzer_eval(self.in_category == self.in_category); // expected-warning{{UNKNOWN}}
+
+ // When there is no explicit accessor defined (even if it looks like there is),
+ // farm the getter body and see if it does actually always yield the same value.
+ clang_analyzer_eval(self.no_custom_accessor == self.no_custom_accessor); // expected-warning{{TRUE}}
+ clang_analyzer_eval(self.still_no_custom_accessor == self.still_no_custom_accessor); // expected-warning{{TRUE}}
+}
+@end
Index: lib/Analysis/BodyFarm.cpp
===================================================================
--- lib/Analysis/BodyFarm.cpp
+++ lib/Analysis/BodyFarm.cpp
@@ -807,6 +807,11 @@
D = D->getCanonicalDecl();
+ // We should not try to synthesize explicitly redefined accessors.
+ // We do not know for sure how they behave.
+ if (!D->isImplicit())
+ return nullptr;
+
Optional<Stmt *> &Val = Bodies[D];
if (Val.hasValue())
return Val.getValue();
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
