Author: Donát Nagy
Date: 2023-08-18T10:47:05+02:00
New Revision: 25b9696b61e53a958e217bb3d0eab66350dc187f
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/25b9696b61e53a958e217bb3d0eab66350dc187f
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/25b9696b61e53a958e217bb3d0eab66350dc187f.diff
LO
Author: Donát Nagy
Date: 2023-08-21T17:17:02+02:00
New Revision: 3e014038b373e5a4a96d89d46cea17e4d2456a04
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/3e014038b373e5a4a96d89d46cea17e4d2456a04
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/3e014038b373e5a4a96d89d46cea17e4d2456a04.diff
LO
Author: Donát Nagy
Date: 2023-08-28T15:20:14+02:00
New Revision: 8a5cfdf7851dcdb4e16c510b133d7d0e79e43fc4
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/8a5cfdf7851dcdb4e16c510b133d7d0e79e43fc4
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/8a5cfdf7851dcdb4e16c510b133d7d0e79e43fc4.diff
LO
Author: Donát Nagy
Date: 2023-06-30T16:27:36+02:00
New Revision: cec30e2b190bd58a26f54b5fd4232d3828632466
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/cec30e2b190bd58a26f54b5fd4232d3828632466
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/cec30e2b190bd58a26f54b5fd4232d3828632466.diff
LO
Author: Donát Nagy
Date: 2023-06-30T17:15:43+02:00
New Revision: 1d75b18843fbca52655e240a120b5fdeeef17c0e
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/1d75b18843fbca52655e240a120b5fdeeef17c0e
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/1d75b18843fbca52655e240a120b5fdeeef17c0e.diff
LO
Author: Donát Nagy
Date: 2023-04-26T15:02:23+02:00
New Revision: de2547329b41ad6ea4ea876d12731bde5a6b64c5
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/de2547329b41ad6ea4ea876d12731bde5a6b64c5
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/de2547329b41ad6ea4ea876d12731bde5a6b64c5.diff
LO
Author: Donát Nagy
Date: 2023-05-03T18:52:27+02:00
New Revision: 8c22cbea87beb74da3dc5891c40cdf574cd5fe56
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/8c22cbea87beb74da3dc5891c40cdf574cd5fe56
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/8c22cbea87beb74da3dc5891c40cdf574cd5fe56.diff
LO
Author: Donát Nagy
Date: 2023-05-04T12:56:15+02:00
New Revision: b88023c25729f4dd4548a25e5e12d6624e2adbaf
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/b88023c25729f4dd4548a25e5e12d6624e2adbaf
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/b88023c25729f4dd4548a25e5e12d6624e2adbaf.diff
LO
Author: Endre Fulop
Date: 2023-06-06T16:28:31+02:00
New Revision: b16a59328fc5120006aeac501637229cc7e30357
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/b16a59328fc5120006aeac501637229cc7e30357
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/b16a59328fc5120006aeac501637229cc7e30357.diff
L
https://github.com/NagyDonat requested changes to this pull request.
Unfortunately this PR is not a full solution, because e.g. the following test
code still triggers the crash (if it is appended to the test file `stream.c`):
```c
struct zerosized {
int foo[0];
};
void fread_zerosized(struc
NagyDonat wrote:
> Even protobuf contains this type of code:
> https://codechecker-demo.eastus.cloudapp.azure.com/Default/report-detail?run=protobuf_v3.13.0_pointersub1&is-unique=on&diff-type=New&checker-name=alpha.core.PointerSub&report-id=5545776&report-hash=1bcd310fbaeccbcc13645b9b277239a2&re
NagyDonat wrote:
_I only noticed that this PR was already merged after posting the review. There
is no need to revert the commit -- it's better than nothing -- but I'd be happy
if you created a followup change that also handles the testcase that I
mentioned._
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-proj
https://github.com/NagyDonat approved this pull request.
LGTM, straightforward change. Thanks!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97078
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-c
@@ -21,30 +21,55 @@
#include "clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/PathSensitive/CallDescription.h"
#include "clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/PathSensitive/CallEvent.h"
#include "clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/PathSensitive/CheckerContext.h"
+#include "clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/PathSensitive/Checker
https://github.com/NagyDonat edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97078
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/NagyDonat approved this pull request.
Let's merge this again, after the Z3 version there shouldn't be any additional
problems.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97265
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://github.com/NagyDonat edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97265
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -21,30 +21,55 @@
#include "clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/PathSensitive/CallDescription.h"
#include "clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/PathSensitive/CallEvent.h"
#include "clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/PathSensitive/CheckerContext.h"
+#include "clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/PathSensitive/Checker
https://github.com/NagyDonat edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97078
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/NagyDonat approved this pull request.
This should be re-landed as well; when it was merged earlier the only issue was
the incompatibility with old Z3 and that was addressed since then (by bumping
the version requirement).
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97298
_
https://github.com/NagyDonat approved this pull request.
Thanks for the updates! I added few minor comments, but the PR is already good
enough to be merged.
> > I only noticed that this PR was already merged after posting the review.
> > There is no need to revert the commit -- it's better th
https://github.com/NagyDonat edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97199
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -1034,16 +1034,16 @@ void StreamChecker::preWrite(const FnDescription *Desc,
const CallEvent &Call,
C.addTransition(State);
}
-static std::optional getPointeeType(const MemRegion *R) {
+static QualType getPointeeType(const MemRegion *R) {
if (!R)
-return std::null
@@ -1034,16 +1034,16 @@ void StreamChecker::preWrite(const FnDescription *Desc,
const CallEvent &Call,
C.addTransition(State);
}
-static std::optional getPointeeType(const MemRegion *R) {
+static QualType getPointeeType(const MemRegion *R) {
if (!R)
-return std::null
@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+Obtaining the Static Analyzer
+=
+
+This page describes how to download and install the analyzer. Once the
analyzer is installed, follow the asdf :doc:`CommandLineUsage` on using the
commandline to get started analyzing your code.
--
https://github.com/NagyDonat updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/95550
From 06adc063c2388ea534537f5a417751fdf64b22cd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Don=C3=A1t=20Nagy?=
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 15:16:34 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] [clang-tidy] Clarify diagnostics of
bugpron
NagyDonat wrote:
I mentioned this change in the paragraph that was describing my earlier commit
(that was also modifying this check).
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/95550
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists
https://github.com/NagyDonat closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/95550
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
NagyDonat wrote:
:thinking: Deleting the html files could break some links on external sites, so
I think it would be better to replace them with a very simple "This content was
moved to " placeholder.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97032
_
@@ -0,0 +1,238 @@
+Command-Line Usage: CodeChecker and scan-build
+===
+
+This document provides guidelines for running Clang Static Analyzer from the
command line on whole projects.
+CodeChecker and scan-build are two CLI tools for usi
https://github.com/NagyDonat approved this pull request.
LGTM, with the disclaimer that I'd still prefer e.g. "second argument instead
of "2nd argument" -- but I won't block the review with this bikeshedding.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/95408
__
@@ -0,0 +1,238 @@
+Command-Line Usage: CodeChecker and scan-build
+===
+
+This document provides guidelines for running Clang Static Analyzer from the
command line on whole projects.
+CodeChecker and scan-build are two CLI tools for usi
https://github.com/NagyDonat commented:
I'm really happy to see that this duplicated documentation is finally cleaned
up after so many years :partying_face:
I added a few minor remarks in inline comments, but the change looks good
overall.
As we discussed privately, this change should be (mos
https://github.com/NagyDonat edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97034
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -0,0 +1,239 @@
+Command Line Usage: scan-build and CodeChecker
+==
+
+This document provides guidelines for running Clang Static Analyzer from the
command line on whole projects.
+CodeChecker and scan-build are two CLI tools for usin
@@ -0,0 +1,239 @@
+Command Line Usage: scan-build and CodeChecker
+==
+
+This document provides guidelines for running Clang Static Analyzer from the
command line on whole projects.
+CodeChecker and scan-build are two CLI tools for usin
https://github.com/NagyDonat edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97034
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/NagyDonat commented:
I'm really happy that you decided to document these :smile:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97407
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo
@@ -346,6 +352,39 @@ class CompoundVal : public NonLoc {
static bool classof(SVal V) { return V.getKind() == CompoundValKind; }
};
+/// The simplest example of a concrete compound value is nonloc::CompoundVal,
+/// which represents a concrete r-value of an initializer-list o
https://github.com/NagyDonat edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97407
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -346,6 +352,39 @@ class CompoundVal : public NonLoc {
static bool classof(SVal V) { return V.getKind() == CompoundValKind; }
};
+/// The simplest example of a concrete compound value is nonloc::CompoundVal,
+/// which represents a concrete r-value of an initializer-list o
@@ -346,6 +352,39 @@ class CompoundVal : public NonLoc {
static bool classof(SVal V) { return V.getKind() == CompoundValKind; }
};
+/// The simplest example of a concrete compound value is nonloc::CompoundVal,
+/// which represents a concrete r-value of an initializer-list o
@@ -346,6 +352,39 @@ class CompoundVal : public NonLoc {
static bool classof(SVal V) { return V.getKind() == CompoundValKind; }
};
+/// The simplest example of a concrete compound value is nonloc::CompoundVal,
+/// which represents a concrete r-value of an initializer-list o
@@ -346,6 +352,39 @@ class CompoundVal : public NonLoc {
static bool classof(SVal V) { return V.getKind() == CompoundValKind; }
};
+/// The simplest example of a concrete compound value is nonloc::CompoundVal,
+/// which represents a concrete r-value of an initializer-list o
https://github.com/NagyDonat approved this pull request.
I'm satisfied with the current state of this commit, but let's wait a few days
for a review from @Szelethus (or anybody else interested).
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/104599
___
cfe
https://github.com/NagyDonat edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/106982
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/NagyDonat requested changes to this pull request.
Unfortunately I found several fundamental issues within the implementation of
`extractActualValueFrom()` -- see inline comments for details.
Moreover I'm not convinced that this "replace `LazyCompoundVal`s with actual
values"
@@ -490,6 +491,47 @@ SVal SValBuilder::evalUnaryOp(ProgramStateRef state,
UnaryOperator::Opcode opc,
llvm_unreachable("Unexpected unary operator");
}
+namespace {
+/// Iterate through to store to find the actual value this LazyCompoundVal
+/// corresponds to. Further readin
@@ -490,6 +491,47 @@ SVal SValBuilder::evalUnaryOp(ProgramStateRef state,
UnaryOperator::Opcode opc,
llvm_unreachable("Unexpected unary operator");
}
+namespace {
+/// Iterate through to store to find the actual value this LazyCompoundVal
+/// corresponds to. Further readin
@@ -490,6 +491,47 @@ SVal SValBuilder::evalUnaryOp(ProgramStateRef state,
UnaryOperator::Opcode opc,
llvm_unreachable("Unexpected unary operator");
}
+namespace {
+/// Iterate through to store to find the actual value this LazyCompoundVal
+/// corresponds to. Further readin
@@ -490,6 +491,47 @@ SVal SValBuilder::evalUnaryOp(ProgramStateRef state,
UnaryOperator::Opcode opc,
llvm_unreachable("Unexpected unary operator");
}
+namespace {
+/// Iterate through to store to find the actual value this LazyCompoundVal
+/// corresponds to. Further readin
@@ -490,6 +491,47 @@ SVal SValBuilder::evalUnaryOp(ProgramStateRef state,
UnaryOperator::Opcode opc,
llvm_unreachable("Unexpected unary operator");
}
+namespace {
+/// Iterate through to store to find the actual value this LazyCompoundVal
+/// corresponds to. Further readin
https://github.com/NagyDonat edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/106982
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/NagyDonat commented:
I investigated this situation and I found that this crash is not limited to
empty source files -- I'd guess that the analyzer would crash on any input if
it's executed as
```
// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -w -analyzer-checker=nullability \
// RUN:
@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -w -analyzer-checker=nullability \
+// RUN: -analyzer-output=text -verify %s
+//
+// expected-no-diagnostics
+//
+// This case previously crashed because of an assert in CheckerManager.cpp,
+// checking for registe
https://github.com/NagyDonat edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/107294
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/NagyDonat commented:
Hmm, I see that this assertion was hidden behind an `#ifndef NDEBUG` so it is
only active within debug builds of the analyzer.
Nevertheless, I still think that it's better to remove it, because
1. it does not offer significant protection against introduci
@@ -48,15 +48,7 @@ bool CheckerManager::hasPathSensitiveCheckers() const {
EvalCallCheckers, EndOfTranslationUnitCheckers);
}
-void CheckerManager::finishedCheckerRegistration() {
-#ifndef NDEBUG
- // Make sure that for every event that has listeners, there is at least
https://github.com/NagyDonat edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/107294
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/NagyDonat edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/107294
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
NagyDonat wrote:
@vabridgers I rewrote the title and description of this PR to describe the
current approach. Feel free to adjust (or partially restore) it if you'd prefer
a different phrasing.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/107294
___
cfe
NagyDonat wrote:
> LGTM. FYI "modelled" should contain only 1 "l" if I'm not mistaken.
British English uses "modeled", while American uses "modelled". I don't know
which is preferred in LLVM.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/107537
___
cfe-
https://github.com/NagyDonat approved this pull request.
Looks good to me :)
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/107294
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/NagyDonat commented:
LGTM, there is no reason to crash on `#embed`.
I think it would be nice to have a few testcases that show the behavior of the
analyzer around `#embed`:
- Can we produce bug reports if there is an (unrelated) `#embed` expression on
the execution path? Or
NagyDonat wrote:
To me this solution seems to be a bit hacky -- I don't like that we need to
scatter "handle `void *` as if it was `char *`" special cases in various parts
of the analyzer (I vaguely recall that I have also seen similar hacks
elsewhere).
I'd prefer solutions that are as generi
NagyDonat wrote:
These reports are definitely FPs caused by buggy number handling, so it would
be good to suppress them.
I was planning to rewrite both `alpha.security.ReturnPtrRange` and
`alpha.unix.cstring.OutOfBounds` to rely on the "backend" prototyped within
ArrayBoundV2 instead of the c
https://github.com/NagyDonat edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/107572
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/NagyDonat approved this pull request.
Bikeshedding: let's delete that empty line.
Otherwise LGTM.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/107572
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bi
@@ -3,6 +3,9 @@
int clang_analyzer_eval(int);
NagyDonat wrote:
```suggestion
```
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/107572
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-
https://github.com/NagyDonat commented:
In the PR/commit message you write that
> At least theoretically the array bounds checker (when finalized) should find
> the same cases that were detected by the PointerSubChecker.
but I'm pretty sure that the array bound checker already does find all th
https://github.com/NagyDonat edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/102580
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -2501,7 +2501,14 @@ alpha.core.PointerSub (C)
Check for pointer subtractions on two pointers pointing to different memory
chunks. According to the C standard §6.5.6 only subtraction of pointers that
point into (or one past the end) the same array object is valid (for this
-p
https://github.com/NagyDonat edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/102580
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/NagyDonat edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/102580
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/NagyDonat requested changes to this pull request.
Thanks!
We should close this when that other PR is accepted and merged. Until then I'm
putting a "Request changes" mark on this to prevent an accidental merge.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/102432
NagyDonat wrote:
Oh, you're right, invalid pointer arithmetic like `(&x - 1)` is not handled by
ArrayBoundV2, because right now that's the responsibility of a THIRD checker,
`alpha.core.PointerArithm`.
However, directly after bringing `ArrayBoundV2` out of alpha, I'll continue
with working on
https://github.com/NagyDonat commented:
Thanks for adding support for these functions! The code LGTM overall, except
for one mostly theoretical issue (about the use of `assert`) which I described
in an inline comment.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/102602
___
https://github.com/NagyDonat edited
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
@@ -21,16 +21,67 @@
#include "clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/PathSensitive/CallDescription.h"
#include "clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/PathSensitive/CallEvent.h"
#include "clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/PathSensitive/CheckerContext.h"
+#include "clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/PathSensitive/Checker
@@ -50,6 +101,44 @@ class BuiltinFunctionChecker : public Checker {
} // namespace
+void BuiltinFunctionChecker::HandleOverflowBuiltin(const CallEvent &Call,
+ CheckerContext &C,
+
@@ -50,6 +101,44 @@ class BuiltinFunctionChecker : public Checker {
} // namespace
+void BuiltinFunctionChecker::HandleOverflowBuiltin(const CallEvent &Call,
+ CheckerContext &C,
+
https://github.com/NagyDonat edited
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
https://github.com/NagyDonat approved this pull request.
Thanks for the updates, I'm satisfied with the state of this commit. However
let's wait for an independent approval from @steakhal @haoNoQ or someone else,
because this change does reduce the scope of this checker.
https://github.com/llv
https://github.com/NagyDonat approved this pull request.
This change seems to be correct, but I don't know enough to dig into the
details and provide a confident review. However, I as far as I know there are
no significantly better reviewers, so I can give you the formal approval.
I think you
https://github.com/NagyDonat closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/102456
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -50,6 +101,44 @@ class BuiltinFunctionChecker : public Checker {
} // namespace
+void BuiltinFunctionChecker::HandleOverflowBuiltin(const CallEvent &Call,
+ CheckerContext &C,
+
https://github.com/NagyDonat edited
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
NagyDonat wrote:
> Do you plan to apply more refactors to invalidation and Store?
These were opportunistic unplanned refactors, I was just familiarizing myself
with the invalidation logic (because I'll need to use it in loop widening), and
I quickly fixed some minor issues that I spotted.
How
https://github.com/NagyDonat closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/102477
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -50,6 +101,44 @@ class BuiltinFunctionChecker : public Checker {
} // namespace
+void BuiltinFunctionChecker::HandleOverflowBuiltin(const CallEvent &Call,
+ CheckerContext &C,
+
https://github.com/NagyDonat edited
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
@@ -50,6 +101,44 @@ class BuiltinFunctionChecker : public Checker {
} // namespace
+void BuiltinFunctionChecker::HandleOverflowBuiltin(const CallEvent &Call,
+ CheckerContext &C,
+
https://github.com/NagyDonat edited
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
https://github.com/NagyDonat edited
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
https://github.com/NagyDonat created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/103059
...because it is too noisy to be useful right now, and its architecture is
terrible, so it can't act a starting point of future development.
The main problem with this checker is that it tries to do (or at le
@@ -1039,10 +1039,6 @@ def ArrayBoundCheckerV2 : Checker<"ArrayBoundV2">,
HelpText<"Warn about buffer overflows (newer checker)">,
Documentation;
-def MallocOverflowSecurityChecker : Checker<"MallocOverflow">,
NagyDonat wrote:
Is it possible to write a "t
https://github.com/NagyDonat updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/103059
From 36821708145587553f13df8648920f281b318240 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Don=C3=A1t=20Nagy?=
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 14:50:17 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [analyzer] Delete alpha.security.MallocOver
@@ -1,40 +0,0 @@
-// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -triple x86_64-unknown-unknown
-analyzer-checker=alpha.security.MallocOverflow,unix -verify %s
-// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -triple x86_64-unknown-unknown
-analyzer-checker=alpha.security.MallocOverflow,unix,optin.portability
-DPORTAB
https://github.com/NagyDonat edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/103059
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -1039,10 +1039,6 @@ def ArrayBoundCheckerV2 : Checker<"ArrayBoundV2">,
HelpText<"Warn about buffer overflows (newer checker)">,
Documentation;
-def MallocOverflowSecurityChecker : Checker<"MallocOverflow">,
NagyDonat wrote:
Now that I think about it, w
1 - 100 of 1033 matches
Mail list logo
