================
@@ -0,0 +1,330 @@
+// RUN: %check_clang_tidy %s bugprone-null-check-after-dereference %t
+
+struct S {
+ int a;
+};
+
+int warning_deref(int *p) {
+ *p = 42;
+
+ if (p) {
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:7: warning: pointer value is checked even
though it cannot be null at this point [bugprone-null-check-after-dereference]
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-4]]:3: note: one of the locations where the
pointer's value cannot be null
+ // FIXME: If there's a direct path, make the error message more precise, ie.
remove `one of the locations`
+ *p += 20;
+ return *p;
+ } else {
+ return 0;
+ }
+}
+
+int warning_member(S *q) {
+ q->a = 42;
+
+ if (q) {
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:7: warning: pointer value is checked even
though it cannot be null at this point
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-4]]:3: note: one of the locations where the
pointer's value cannot be null
+ q->a += 20;
+ return q->a;
+ } else {
+ return 0;
+ }
+}
+
+int negative_warning(int *p) {
+ *p = 42;
+
+ if (!p) {
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:8: warning: pointer value is checked even
though it cannot be null at this point
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-4]]:3: note: one of the locations where the
pointer's value cannot be null
+ return 0;
+ } else {
+ *p += 20;
+ return *p;
+ }
+}
+
+int no_warning(int *p, bool b) {
+ if (b) {
+ *p = 42;
+ }
+
+ if (p) {
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT: :[[@LINE-1]]:7: warning: pointer value is checked
even though it cannot be null at this point
+ *p += 20;
+ return *p;
+ } else {
+ return 0;
+ }
+}
+
+int else_branch_warning(int *p, bool b) {
+ if (b) {
+ *p = 42;
+ } else {
+ *p = 20;
+ }
+
+ if (p) {
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:7: warning: pointer value is checked even
though it cannot be null at this point
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-7]]:5: note: one of the locations where the
pointer's value cannot be null
+ return 0;
+ } else {
+ *p += 20;
+ return *p;
+ }
+}
+
+int two_branches_warning(int *p, bool b) {
+ if (b) {
+ *p = 42;
+ }
+
+ if (!b) {
+ *p = 20;
+ }
+
+ if (p) {
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:7: warning: pointer value is checked even
though it cannot be null at this point
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-9]]:5: note: one of the locations where the
pointer's value cannot be null
+ return 0;
+ } else {
+ *p += 20;
+ return *p;
+ }
+}
+
+int two_branches_reversed(int *p, bool b) {
----------------
Discookie wrote:
Indeed - it was testing the check's behavior from back when variables' `Value`s
weren't initialized by default.
Merging a variable that only had a `Value` on one of the branches caused weird
behavior - same reason the leftover ``initializeFunctionParameters()`` was
still in the code.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84166
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
