[PATCH] D62093: [analyzer] List checkers in 3 categories: released, alpha, developer

Szelethus marked an inline comment as done. Szelethus added inline comments. Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Frontend/CheckerRegistry.cpp:527-530 +// developer checkers even in the alpha output. For example, +// alpha.cplusplus.IteratorModeling is a modeling checker, hence

[PATCH] D57858: [analyzer] Add a new frontend flag to display all checker options

This revision was not accepted when it landed; it landed in state "Needs Review". This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rL361552: [analyzer] Add a new frontend flag to display all checker options (authored by Szelethus, committed by ). Herald a

[PATCH] D62093: [analyzer] List checkers in 3 categories: released, alpha, developer

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rL361558: [analyzer] List checkers in 3 categories: released, alpha, developer (authored by Szelethus, committed by ). Herald added a project: LLVM. Herald added a subscriber: llvm-commits. Changed prior to

[PATCH] D61839: [analyzer] Hide developer-only checker/package options by default

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rC361561: [analyzer] Hide developer-only checker/package options by default (authored by Szelethus, committed by ). Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D61839/new/

[PATCH] D62094: [analyzer] List checker/plugin options in 3 categories: released, alpha, developer

Szelethus added a comment. Ops, committed in rC361566 with the wrong revision name. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D62094/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D62094 ___ cfe-commits mailing li

[PATCH] D62093: [analyzer] List checkers in 3 categories: released, alpha, developer

Szelethus added a comment. rC361566 is incorrectly marked for this revision instead of D62094 . Repository: rL LLVM CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D62093/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D62093 __

[PATCH] D62094: [analyzer] List checker/plugin options in 3 categories: released, alpha, developer

Szelethus added a comment. Alright, builbots don't seem to complain just yet. Thank you so much for all the help!!! This patch concludes the analyzer configuration project for good :) CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D62094/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D62094 __

[PATCH] D61816: [CFG] [analyzer] pr41300: Add a branch to skip virtual base initializers when they are handled by the superclass.

Szelethus accepted this revision. Szelethus added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. LGTM! Nicely done! CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D61816/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D61816 ___ cfe-commits mailin

[PATCH] D62479: [Analyzer] Replace `CXXSelfAssignmentBRVisitor` with `NoteTags`

Szelethus accepted this revision. Szelethus added a comment. I love this. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D62479/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D62479 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.o

[PATCH] D62507: [Dominators] PR42041: Skip nullpointer successors

Szelethus updated this revision to Diff 201679. Szelethus added a comment. Correctly use `reverse(children(N))` and `inverse_children(N)`, based on the original code: template struct ChildrenGetter { using ResultTy = SmallVector; static ResultTy Get(NodePtr N, std::integral_const

[PATCH] D62551: [analyzer][Dominator] Add post dominator tree builder for the CFG + a debug checker

Szelethus created this revision. Szelethus added reviewers: NoQ, kuhar, xazax.hun, rnkovacs, dcoughlin, baloghadamsoftware, Charusso. Szelethus added a project: clang. Herald added subscribers: cfe-commits, gamesh411, dkrupp, donat.nagy, mikhail.ramalho, a.sidorin, szepet, whisperity. Szelethus a

[PATCH] D62551: [analyzer][Dominator] Add post dominator tree builder for the CFG + a debug checker

Szelethus marked 5 inline comments as done. Szelethus added inline comments. Comment at: clang/include/clang/Analysis/Analyses/Dominators.h:111 + assert( + (IDom && !IDom->getBlock() && *I == &(*I)->getParent()->getExit() && + IsPostDom) || ---

[PATCH] D62551: [analyzer][Dominator] Add post dominator tree builder for the CFG + a debug checker

Szelethus updated this revision to Diff 201769. Szelethus edited the summary of this revision. Szelethus added a comment. Fixes according to @kuhar's comments, thanks! CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D62551/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D62551 Files: clang/include/clang/

[PATCH] D61912: [analyzer] print() JSONify: Store implementation

Szelethus added a comment. In D61912#1521411 , @Charusso wrote: > >> In D61912#1521306 , @lebedev.ri > >> wrote: > >> > >>> All these patches bypassed cfe-commits. > >> > >> > >> Bypassed? It is only added when

[PATCH] D62611: [analyzer][Dominators] Add unittests

Szelethus created this revision. Szelethus added reviewers: NoQ, xazax.hun, rnkovacs, baloghadamsoftware, Charusso, dcoughlin. Szelethus added a project: clang. Herald added subscribers: cfe-commits, gamesh411, dkrupp, donat.nagy, mikhail.ramalho, a.sidorin, szepet, kuhar, whisperity, mgorny. Ex

[PATCH] D62507: [Dominators] PR42041: Skip nullpointer successors

Szelethus updated this revision to Diff 201994. Szelethus added a comment. Drastically improve the readability of the test files. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D62507/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D62507 Files: clang/include/clang/Analysis/Analyses/Dominators.h clang

[PATCH] D62551: [analyzer][Dominator] Add post dominator tree builder for the CFG + a debug checker

Szelethus updated this revision to Diff 201995. Szelethus added a comment. Cascade the test file readability improvement from the previous patch. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D62551/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D62551 Files: clang/include/clang/Analysis/Analyses/Domi

[PATCH] D62611: [analyzer][Dominators] Add unittests

Szelethus marked 5 inline comments as done. Szelethus added inline comments. Comment at: clang/unittests/Analysis/CFGDominatorTree.cpp:95 + CFGPostDomTree PostDom; + PostDom.buildDominatorTree(cfg); + kuhar wrote: > Why not have a constructor that takes the cfg

[PATCH] D62611: [analyzer][Dominators] Add unittests

Szelethus updated this revision to Diff 202004. Szelethus added a comment. Fixes according to reviewer comments, thanks! :) CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D62611/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D62611 Files: clang/unittests/Analysis/CFGBuilder.h clang/unittests/Analysis

[PATCH] D62619: [analyzer][Dominators] Add a control dependency tree builder + a new debug checker

Szelethus created this revision. Szelethus added reviewers: kuhar, NoQ, dcoughlin, xazax.hun, rnkovacs, baloghadamsoftware, Charusso. Szelethus added a project: clang. Herald added subscribers: cfe-commits, gamesh411, dkrupp, donat.nagy, mikhail.ramalho, a.sidorin, szepet, whisperity. Szelethus a

[PATCH] D62619: [analyzer][Dominators] Add a control dependency tree builder + a new debug checker

Szelethus added a comment. In D62619#1521824 , @kuhar wrote: > You can easily get CD by calculating the PostDominanceFrontier. LLVM > implements a templated IDF (Iterated Dominance Frontier) construction. > A native implementation for llvm ir for referen

[PATCH] D55125: [clang-tidy] Fix a false positive in misc-redundant-expression check

Szelethus added inline comments. Comment at: clang-tidy/misc/RedundantExpressionCheck.cpp:601 +static bool compareToks(Token &T1, Token &T2, const SourceManager &SM) { + if (T1.getLength() != T2.getLength()) alexfh wrote: > Should this function compare token k

[PATCH] D55125: [clang-tidy] Fix a false positive in misc-redundant-expression check

Szelethus added inline comments. Comment at: clang-tidy/misc/RedundantExpressionCheck.cpp:601 +static bool compareToks(Token &T1, Token &T2, const SourceManager &SM) { + if (T1.getLength() != T2.getLength()) Szelethus wrote: > alexfh wrote: > > Should this fun

[PATCH] D53280: [analyzer] Emit an error for invalid -analyzer-config inputs

Szelethus added a comment. >> The deadline is around the creation of the 8.0.0. release branch, right? > > I'd feel slightly more comfortable if some sort of fix gets in before the > Christmas break. Sure! :) Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D53280/

[PATCH] D54438: [analyzer] Reimplement dependencies between checkers

Szelethus added a comment. Hmmm, I left plenty of room for improvement in the tblgen generation, we could generate compile-time errors on cycles within the dependency graph, try to include the generated file only once, but these clearly are very low-prio issues, so I'll do it later. I'll have t

[PATCH] D55697: [analyzer] Assume that we always have a SubEngine available

Szelethus added a comment. We could also add an assert to getOwningEngine I guess. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D55697/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D55697 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lis

[PATCH] D55734: [analyzer] Refactoring GenericTaintChecker.cpp

Szelethus added a comment. Could you please reupload with full context? :) https://llvm.org/docs/Phabricator.html#requesting-a-review-via-the-web-interface Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D55734/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D55734 ___

[PATCH] D54918: [analyzer] Apply clang-format to GenericTaintChecker.cpp

Szelethus added a comment. Please don't mind me intruding. If you create a patch for the Clang Static Analyzer, please add "[analyzer]" in the revision title, because many of us are automatically subscribed to those patches. Also, upload patches with full context. https://llvm.org/docs/Phabricat

[PATCH] D55683: [analyzer] Tests for scan-build?

Szelethus accepted this revision. Szelethus added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. I don't really use `scan-build`, so I can't barrage you with suggestions, but the patch looks great. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D55683/

[PATCH] D55730: [analyzer] MoveChecker Pt.9: Add a "peaceful" mode in which it finds only 100% authentic bugs.

Szelethus added inline comments. Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/MoveChecker.cpp:29 namespace { - struct RegionState { Somewhat unrelated, but the size of this anonymous namespace is far too great. Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Check

[PATCH] D55734: [analyzer] Refactoring GenericTaintChecker.cpp

Szelethus added inline comments. Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/GenericTaintChecker.cpp:210-230 + TaintPropagationRule Rule = + llvm::StringSwitch(Name) + .Case("atoi", TaintPropagationRule({0}, {ReturnValueIndex})) + .Case("atol", TaintPropagatio

[PATCH] D54429: [analyzer] Creating standard Sphinx documentation

Szelethus added a comment. That I think sounds great! Thanks! CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D54429/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D54429 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mai

[PATCH] D54918: [analyzer] Apply clang-format to GenericTaintChecker.cpp

Szelethus accepted this revision. Szelethus added a comment. Hmm, actually, if you're doing changes all over the file in the followup patches, it shouldn't matter much. Let's just wait a couple days for ppl to object, now that they are subscribed. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACT

[PATCH] D54401: [analyzer] Prefer returns values to out-params in CheckerRegistry.cpp

Szelethus closed this revision. Szelethus added a comment. Commited in rC349274 . CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D54401/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D54401 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-c

[PATCH] D54436: [analyzer][NFC] Move CheckerRegistry from the Core directory to Frontend

This revision was not accepted when it landed; it landed in state "Needs Review". This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rL349275: [analyzer][NFC] Move CheckerRegistry from the Core directory to Frontend (authored by Szelethus, committed by ). H

[PATCH] D54437: [analyzer][NFC] Merge ClangCheckerRegistry to CheckerRegistry

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rL349280: [analyzer][NFC] Merge ClangCheckerRegistry to CheckerRegistry (authored by Szelethus, committed by ). Herald added a subscriber: llvm-commits. Changed prior to commit: https://reviews.llvm.org/D

[PATCH] D55734: [analyzer] Refactoring GenericTaintChecker.cpp

Szelethus added a comment. Hmm, I find the revision title and summary a little vague -- I'd expect a revision called "Refactoring" not to feature any funcitonal change, yet you changed how variadic functions are handled. Please - Keep purely formatting changes to your earlier revision, and reba

[PATCH] D54823: [analyzer][MallocChecker][NFC] Document and reorganize some functions

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rL349281: [analyzer][MallocChecker][NFC] Document and reorganize some functions (authored by Szelethus, committed by ). Herald added a subscriber: llvm-commits. Changed prior to commit: https://reviews.ll

[PATCH] D54834: [analyzer][MallocChecker] Improve warning messages on double-delete errors

Szelethus added a comment. In D54834#1315475 , @NoQ wrote: > Thanks, nice catch! > > It seems that the `ReportDoubleDelete()` thing was never used for reporting > double-delete, but it was used for some strange check when a destructor is > called. It w

[PATCH] D54834: [analyzer][MallocChecker] Improve warning messages on double-delete errors

Szelethus marked 2 inline comments as done. Szelethus added inline comments. Comment at: test/Analysis/NewDelete-checker-test.cpp:380 delete foo; delete foo; // expected-warning {{Attempt to delete released memory}} } Right here. Comment

[PATCH] D54834: [analyzer][MallocChecker] Improve warning messages on double-delete errors

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rC349283: [analyzer][MallocChecker] Improve warning messages on double-delete errors (authored by Szelethus, committed by ). Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D548

[PATCH] D55730: [analyzer] MoveChecker Pt.9: Add a "peaceful" mode in which it finds only 100% authentic bugs.

Szelethus added inline comments. Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/MoveChecker.cpp:188-195 + void setAggressiveness(StringRef Str) { +Aggressiveness = +llvm::StringSwitch(Str) +.Case("KnownsOnly", AK_KnownsOnly) +.Case("KnownsAndLocals",

[PATCH] D54834: [analyzer][MallocChecker] Improve warning messages on double-delete errors

Szelethus added a comment. Interesting, I've been watching the bots closely, but got no mail after a while. I'm not sure what the cause is, so I'll revert one-by-one. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D54834/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D54834 ___

[PATCH] D54918: [analyzer] Apply clang-format to GenericTaintChecker.cpp

Szelethus added a comment. @boga95 Do you have commit access, or need this to be commited on your behalf? Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D54918/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D54918 ___ cfe-commits maili

[PATCH] D38675: [analyzer] MoveChecker Pt.10: Move the checker out of alpha state.

Szelethus added a comment. A little late to the party, but I don't see anything against this. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D38675/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D38675 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-

[PATCH] D54834: [analyzer][MallocChecker] Improve warning messages on double-delete errors

Szelethus reopened this revision. Szelethus added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. Reverted in rC349340 . With the wrong revision name... oops... Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D54834/new

[PATCH] D54823: [analyzer][MallocChecker][NFC] Document and reorganize some functions

Szelethus reopened this revision. Szelethus added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. Reverted in rC349344 . Repository: rL LLVM CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D54823/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D54823

[PATCH] D54823: [analyzer][MallocChecker][NFC] Document and reorganize some functions

Szelethus added a comment. Lit test failures are gone for Windows after reverting this. Will probably deal with this revision after 8.0.0. Repository: rL LLVM CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D54823/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D54823

[PATCH] D51866: [analyzer][UninitializedObjectChecker] New flag to ignore guarded uninitialized fields

Szelethus added a comment. Ping. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D51866/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D51866 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[PATCH] D54438: [analyzer] Reimplement dependencies between checkers

Szelethus added a comment. > I still expect some skeletons to fall out of the closet This patch doesn't handle -analyzer-disable-checker, which leads to assertation failures in later pathes. Since the way which checker should/shouldnt be enabled is implemented rather poorly, I'll probably try t

[PATCH] D55792: Allow direct navigation to static analysis checker documentation through SARIF exports

Szelethus added a comment. Thank you so much for working on this! The lack of a proper documentation is indeed a weak points of the project. I guess it'd be better to generate the entire URI in the tblgen file, and also allow plugins to register their own through `CheckerRegistry`. Sarif lackin

[PATCH] D55823: [analyzer] Fix backward compatibility issue after D53280 'Emit an error for invalid -analyzer-config inputs'

Szelethus created this revision. Szelethus added reviewers: NoQ, george.karpenkov. Herald added subscribers: cfe-commits, gamesh411, dkrupp, donat.nagy, mikhail.ramalho, a.sidorin, szepet, baloghadamsoftware, xazax.hun, whisperity. Fix according to the discussion here: D53280

[PATCH] D55792: Allow direct navigation to static analysis checker documentation through SARIF exports

Szelethus added a comment. Global nit: I guess having both DESC and DOCS as variable/macro arg names is confusing. Can we instead use DOCSURI/DocsUri? In D55792#1334339 , @aaron.ballman wrote: > In D55792#1334291

[PATCH] D55792: Allow direct navigation to static analysis checker documentation through SARIF exports

Szelethus accepted this revision. Szelethus added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. This is awesome. Please wait for either @NoQ or @george.karpenkov to have the final say. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D55792/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D5579

[PATCH] D55823: [analyzer] Fix backward compatibility issue after D53280 'Emit an error for invalid -analyzer-config inputs'

Szelethus marked an inline comment as done. Szelethus added inline comments. Comment at: test/Analysis/invalid-analyzer-config-value.c:72 +// even if -analyze isn't specified. +// RUN: %clang --analyze -Xclang -analyzer-config -Xclang remember=TheVasa %s + NoQ wr

[PATCH] D55823: [analyzer] Fix backward compatibility issue after D53280 'Emit an error for invalid -analyzer-config inputs'

Szelethus added a comment. Yea, should've used `hasArg` anyways. I'll look into this tonight. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D55823/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D55823 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-

[PATCH] D55873: [analyzer] CStringChecker: Fix a crash when an argument of a weird type is encountered.

Szelethus accepted this revision. Szelethus added a comment. Cheers! Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D55873/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D55873 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org ht

[PATCH] D55823: [analyzer] Fix backward compatibility issue after D53280 'Emit an error for invalid -analyzer-config inputs'

Szelethus marked an inline comment as done. Szelethus added inline comments. Comment at: lib/Driver/ToolChains/Clang.cpp:3694 + { +auto AnalyzerConfigArg = When I dump `Args` for the following invocation, I get this: `clang -c dummie.cpp -Xclang -analyzer

[PATCH] D55823: [analyzer] Fix backward compatibility issue after D53280 'Emit an error for invalid -analyzer-config inputs'

Szelethus updated this revision to Diff 178927. Szelethus added a comment. I'm still looking for a sensible solution, but I'll at least share a patch that actually works. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D55823/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D55823 Files: lib/Driver/ToolC

[PATCH] D55823: [analyzer] Fix backward compatibility issue after D53280 'Emit an error for invalid -analyzer-config inputs'

Szelethus marked 2 inline comments as done. Szelethus added inline comments. Comment at: test/Analysis/invalid-analyzer-config-value.c:72 +// even if -analyze isn't specified. +// RUN: %clang --analyze -Xclang -analyzer-config -Xclang remember=TheVasa %s + Szelet

[PATCH] D55823: [analyzer] Fix backward compatibility issue after D53280 'Emit an error for invalid -analyzer-config inputs'

Szelethus marked an inline comment as done. Szelethus added a comment. Sure! I'm on my phone, and will be for a little while, can you commit on my behalf? Comment at: lib/Driver/ToolChains/Clang.cpp:3700 + // through them. + for (size_t Index = 0; Index < Args.size(); ++Inde

[PATCH] D55823: [analyzer] Fix backward compatibility issue after D53280 'Emit an error for invalid -analyzer-config inputs'

Szelethus accepted this revision. Szelethus added a comment. Thanks! Sorry about being a little slow with this, I'm sadly busier than I expected, but I'll definitely think about a nicer solution. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D55823/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D55823

[PATCH] D55823: [analyzer] Fix backward compatibility issue after D53280 'Emit an error for invalid -analyzer-config inputs'

Szelethus added a comment. Missed out on the developments. Thank you so much for handling this! CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D55823/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D55823 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org

[PATCH] D67418: [analyzer] NFC: Move PathDiagnostic::resetDiagnosticLocationToMainFile to bug reporter.

Szelethus accepted this revision. Szelethus added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. Sure! Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D67418/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D67418 ___ cfe-com

[PATCH] D67381: [analyzer] NFC: Move stack hints to a side map.

Szelethus accepted this revision. Szelethus added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. > I'm open to discuss a better design here. Eg., i thought about making it part > of the visitor interface instead, but i don't immediately see how to do this > without breaking the logi

[PATCH] D67382: [analyzer] NFC: Move getStmt() and createEndOfPath() out of PathDiagnostic.

Szelethus accepted this revision. Szelethus added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. LGTM! I think code readability improved geatly. > This creates a certain problem in `RetainCountChecker` (surprise!!~) We constantly bully this checker, but still not enough :^) =

[PATCH] D67419: [analyzer] NFC: Move PathDiagnostic to libAnalysis.

Szelethus added a comment. Looks great! Are we sure that `PathDiagnostic.h` is a good header name? Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/ClangTidy.cpp:26 #include "clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchFinder.h" -#include "clang/Config/config.h" #include "clang/Format/Format.h" --

[PATCH] D67420: [analyzer] NFC: Separate PathDiagnosticConsumer options from AnalyzerOptions.

Szelethus added a comment. > @Szelethus: I could have stored `PathDiagnosticConsumerOptions` in > `AnalyzerOptions` by value and pass a const reference around, but it wasn't > pleasant to integrate with `AnalyzerOptions.def`. I.e., i'd have to implement > a new kind of option that doesn't alloc

[PATCH] D67420: [analyzer] NFC: Separate PathDiagnosticConsumer options from AnalyzerOptions.

Szelethus added a comment. In D67420#1666578 , @NoQ wrote: > In D67420#1666141 , @Szelethus wrote: > > > I do! > > > Hmm, it sounds like you want to force both Clang frontend and Clang-Tidy to > use the same set of

[PATCH] D66714: [analyzer] Don't run the analyzer for -analyzer-list-enabled-checkers

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rL371756: [analyzer] Don't run the analyzer for -analyzer-list-enabled-checkers (authored by Szelethus, committed by ). Herald added a project: LLVM. Herald added a subscriber: llvm-commits. Changed prior t

[PATCH] D67140: [analyzer][NFC] Fix inconsistent references to checkers as "checks"

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rL371760: [analyzer][NFC] Fix inconsistent references to checkers as "checks" (authored by Szelethus, committed by ). Herald added a project: LLVM. Herald added a subscriber: llvm-commits. Changed prior to

[PATCH] D66715: [CFG] Add dumps for CFGElement and CFGElementRef

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rL371765: [CFG] Add dumps for CFGElement and CFGElementRef (authored by Szelethus, committed by ). Herald added a project: LLVM. Herald added a subscriber: llvm-commits. Changed prior to commit: https://r

[PATCH] D67420: [analyzer] NFC: Separate PathDiagnosticConsumer options from AnalyzerOptions.

Szelethus added a comment. In D67420#1668474 , @NoQ wrote: > It's not that `AnalyzerOptions` is //necessary// to construct this, it's more > like //sufficient//. *sudden enlightenment* Ah, okay, right, I'm a dummie, I think I got what's happening here!

[PATCH] D67140: [analyzer][NFC] Fix inconsistent references to checkers as "checks"

Szelethus added a comment. Yes, thank you! I've been keeping my mailbox open and commiting slowly, it seems like the buildbots have a wrong email address set up for me. Repository: rL LLVM CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D67140/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D67140 __

[PATCH] D67420: [analyzer] NFC: Separate PathDiagnosticConsumer options from AnalyzerOptions.

Szelethus added a comment. Aha, so every user gets to create their own `PathDiagnosticConsumerOptions` object, makes sense! There is no interface misconception, because `-analyzer-config` will only configure what the analyzer would tinket with. I like this patch! If you dont mind, I'd prefer to

[PATCH] D67420: [analyzer] NFC: Separate PathDiagnosticConsumer options from AnalyzerOptions.

Szelethus added inline comments. Comment at: clang/include/clang/Analysis/PathDiagnostic.h:81 + /// because deterministic mode is always superior when done right, but + /// for some consumers is experimental and needs to be off by default. + bool ShouldWriteStableReportFilenam

[PATCH] D66716: [analyzer] PR43102: Fix an assertion and an out-of-bounds error for diagnostic location construction

Szelethus added a comment. In D66716#1671105 , @TWeaver wrote: > Hi there, > > just checking in, is this patch still going ahead? > > thanks > Tom W Unfortunately, it seems like the correct solution is a bit more complex than these if branches, so it m

[PATCH] D66716: [analyzer] PR43102: Fix an assertion and an out-of-bounds error for diagnostic location construction

Szelethus added a comment. While we're there, could you please see whether the included test case (note how condition tracking is turned off) fails on your platform without the rest of the patch applied (it definitely does on mine, which is why I was surprised to see this bug report pop up only

[PATCH] D66716: [analyzer] PR43102: Fix an assertion and an out-of-bounds error for diagnostic location construction

This revision was not accepted when it landed; it landed in state "Needs Review". This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rL372269: [analyzer] PR43102: Fix an assertion and an out-of-bounds error for diagnostic… (authored by Szelethus, committed

[PATCH] D66716: [analyzer] PR43102: Fix an assertion and an out-of-bounds error for diagnostic location construction

Szelethus added a comment. We have no solid evidence to conclude that such an event should not occur at a `BlockEntrance`, so fixing this error mustn't be that bad. I certainly should've used `llvm::isa_or_nonnull`, so the patch overall makes sense, so I'm commiting it as is. With that said, th

[PATCH] D54823: [analyzer][MallocChecker][NFC] Document and reorganize some functions

Szelethus marked an inline comment as done. Szelethus added inline comments. Herald added a subscriber: Charusso. Herald added a project: LLVM. Comment at: cfe/trunk/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/MallocChecker.cpp:3090 return checkPointerEscapeAux(State, Escaped, Call, Kind, -

[PATCH] D54823: [analyzer][MallocChecker][NFC] Document and reorganize some functions

Szelethus updated this revision to Diff 220873. Szelethus added a comment. Rebase, fix (suspected) error that caused buildbot errors. Hold off commiting in favor checking whether putting `CallDescriptionMap` in would be too invasive, but really, can't be worse then it already is. CHANGES SINCE

[PATCH] D54823: [analyzer][MallocChecker][NFC] Document and reorganize some functions

Szelethus added a comment. In D54823#1675352 , @Szelethus wrote: > Rebase, fix (suspected) error that caused buildbot errors. Hold off commiting > in favor checking whether putting `CallDescriptionMap` in would be too > invasive, but really, can't be wor

[PATCH] D54823: [analyzer][MallocChecker][NFC] Document and reorganize some functions

Szelethus marked an inline comment as done. Szelethus added a comment. In D54823#1675604 , @NoQ wrote: > Is it just me or phabricator somehow refuses to display the changes since the > last diff here? That's probably the commit diff is involved somehow. S

[PATCH] D54823: [analyzer][MallocChecker][NFC] Document and reorganize some functions

Szelethus added a comment. In retrospect, I would have made this patch a little more fragmented (its almost a year old, does it beat the revival of the symbolreaper patch?), but it would be a painful chore to separate at this point, if you dont mind. I have a couple more cooking in the cauldron

[PATCH] D54823: [analyzer][MallocChecker][NFC] Document and reorganize some functions

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rL372414: Reland '[analyzer][MallocChecker][NFC] Document and reorganize some functions' (authored by Szelethus, committed by ). Herald added a project: LLVM. Changed prior to commit: https://reviews.llvm

[PATCH] D67079: [analyzer] CastValueChecker: Model inheritance

Szelethus added inline comments. Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/DynamicType.cpp:44 + +bool isDerivedFrom(QualType X, QualType Y) { + const CXXRecordDecl *XRD = X->getPointeeCXXRecordDecl(); Hmm, I think this function answers the question, at least in

[PATCH] D54823: [analyzer][MallocChecker][NFC] Document and reorganize some functions

Szelethus added a comment. Welp, windows builtbots broke again. I'll try to see whats wrong with undef sanitizer, but fear this will end up in a revert. http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/llvm-clang-x86_64-expensive-checks-win/builds/19769/steps/test-check-all/logs/stdio Repository: rL LLVM

[PATCH] D67877: [analyzer] Conditionnaly include clang Analysis examples with cmake.

Szelethus added a comment. Apologies for the intrusion, but these plugins were added by me, and test an important case for our internal plugins. Could you please give me just a day or so the check whether the tests work for us correctly? Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION http

[PATCH] D64991: [analyzer][WIP] Implement a primitive reaching definitions analysis

Szelethus updated this revision to Diff 221355. Szelethus added a comment. The following words are echoing in my ears as I'm knowingly going completely against them: In D45532#1083670 , @NoQ wrote: > I'm asking for this because it's, like, actually diffi

[PATCH] D67932: [analyzer] Fix accidentally skipping the call during inlined defensive check suppression.

Szelethus added a comment. Hmm, so before this patch, we just used `LVNode` everywhere and ignored `InputNode`. It may not have made much sense, but its still not as confusing as using both if the creation of `LVNode` is unnecessary overall. Could we just remove it? Comment

[PATCH] D67932: [analyzer] Fix accidentally skipping the call during inlined defensive check suppression.

Szelethus accepted this revision. Szelethus added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. If you could change that, it would be awesome! But since this revision has its own side effect, let's commit as-is. LGTM! Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://rev

[PATCH] D67877: [analyzer] Conditionnaly include clang Analysis examples with cmake.

Szelethus added a comment. I have no objections on my end. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D67877/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D67877 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.o

[PATCH] D67706: [clang][analyzer] Using CallDescription in StreamChecker.

Szelethus added a comment. It seems like this patch is diffed against your latest commit, not the master branch. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D67706/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D67706 __

[PATCH] D68163: [analyzer][MallocChecker][NFC] Change the use of IdentifierInfo* to CallDescription

Szelethus created this revision. Szelethus added reviewers: NoQ, xazax.hun, rnkovacs, baloghadamsoftware, Charusso, dcoughlin. Szelethus added a project: clang. Herald added subscribers: cfe-commits, gamesh411, dkrupp, donat.nagy, mikhail.ramalho, a.sidorin, szepet, whisperity. Exactly what it s

[PATCH] D68162: [analyzer][MallocChecker][NFC] Communicate the allocation family information to auxiliary functions with template parameters

Szelethus created this revision. Szelethus added reviewers: NoQ, xazax.hun, rnkovacs, Charusso, dcoughlin, baloghadamsoftware. Szelethus added a project: clang. Herald added subscribers: cfe-commits, gamesh411, dkrupp, donat.nagy, mikhail.ramalho, a.sidorin, szepet, whisperity. The following ser

[PATCH] D68165: [analyzer][MallocChecker][NFC] Split checkPostCall up, deploy CallDescriptionMap

Szelethus created this revision. Szelethus added reviewers: NoQ, xazax.hun, rnkovacs, Charusso, baloghadamsoftware, dcoughlin. Szelethus added a project: clang. Herald added subscribers: cfe-commits, gamesh411, dkrupp, donat.nagy, mikhail.ramalho, a.sidorin, szepet, whisperity. Szelethus added a

[PATCH] D68165: [analyzer][MallocChecker][NFC] Split checkPostCall up, deploy CallDescriptionMap

Szelethus marked 2 inline comments as done. Szelethus added inline comments. Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/MallocChecker.cpp:890 -bool MemFunctionInfoTy::isCMemAllocFunction(const CallEvent &Call) const { - if (Call.isCalled(CD_malloc, CD_realloc, CD_reallocf,

[PATCH] D68163: [analyzer][MallocChecker][NFC] Change the use of IdentifierInfo* to CallDescription

Szelethus marked 2 inline comments as done. Szelethus added inline comments. Comment at: clang/include/clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/PathSensitive/CallEvent.h:259 /// calls. bool isCalled(const CallDescription &CD) const; NoQ wrote: > I don't fully understan

[PATCH] D68165: [analyzer][MallocChecker][NFC] Split checkPostCall up, deploy CallDescriptionMap

Szelethus marked 2 inline comments as done. Szelethus added inline comments. Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/MallocChecker.cpp:378-379 + + using CheckFn = void (MallocChecker::*)(CheckerContext &C, const CallExpr *CE, + Pro

<    2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   >