================
@@ -50,6 +101,44 @@ class BuiltinFunctionChecker : public Checker<eval::Call> {
} // namespace
+void BuiltinFunctionChecker::HandleOverflowBuiltin(const CallEvent &Call,
+ CheckerContext &C,
+ BinaryOperator::Opcode Op,
+ QualType ResultType) const {
+ // All __builtin_*_overflow functions take 3 argumets.
+ assert(Call.getNumArgs() == 3);
----------------
NagyDonat wrote:
The use of `assert()` should be limited to situations where we realize that the
_analyzer code_ is buggy (we reached an "impossible" situation). If the
_analyzed code_ contains an invalid call like `__builtin_add_overflow(10, 20,
&res, "spam")`, then the analyzer _may_ report an error, but must not crash
with an assertion failure.
Unfortunately, this particular checker is a so-called "modeling" checker, so it
is hidden from the user (as an undocumented implementation detail), and
therefore it cannot create bug reports.
This means that if we encounter an invalid `__builtin_*_overflow` call, then we
should probably just ignore it, because we should not assert and we cannot
create a bug report. I'd assume that this is an extremely rare situation (if
someone uses these builtin function, they're unlikely to mess up the argument
count), so a more complex solution (e.g. introducing a new non-modeling checker
which creates bug reports) is probably not worth the effort.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/102602
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
