[clang] Use value instead of getValue (NFC)

[clang] Don't use Optional::hasValue (NFC)

This patch replaces Optional::hasValue with the implicit cast to bool
in conditionals only.

Revert "Don't use Optional::hasValue (NFC)"

This reverts commit aa8feeefd3ac6c78ee8f67bf033976fc7d68bc6d.

Don't use Optional::hasValue (NFC)

[analyzer][NFC] Prefer using isa<> instead getAs<> in conditions

Depends on D125709

Reviewed By: martong

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D127742

[analyzer][NFC] Remove dead code and modernize surroundings

Thanks @kazu for helping me clean these parts in D127799.

I'm leaving the dump methods, along with the unused visitor handlers and
the fo

[analyzer][NFC] Remove dead code and modernize surroundings

Thanks @kazu for helping me clean these parts in D127799.

I'm leaving the dump methods, along with the unused visitor handlers and
the forwarding methods.

The dead parts actually helped to uncover two bugs, to which I'm going
to post separate patches.

Reviewed By: martong

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D127836

show more ...

[analyzer][Casting] Support isa, cast, dyn_cast of SVals

This change specializes the LLVM RTTI mechanism for SVals.
After this change, we can use the well-known `isa`, `cast`, `dyn_cast`.

Examples:

[analyzer][Casting] Support isa, cast, dyn_cast of SVals

This change specializes the LLVM RTTI mechanism for SVals.
After this change, we can use the well-known `isa`, `cast`, `dyn_cast`.

Examples:

// SVal V = ...;
// Loc MyLoc = ...;

bool IsInteresting = isa<loc::MemRegionVal, loc::GotoLabel>(MyLoc);
auto MRV = cast<loc::MemRegionVal>(MyLoc);
Optional<loc::MemRegionVal> MaybeMRV = dyn_cast<loc::MemRegionVal>(V)

The current `SVal::getAs` and `castAs` member functions are redundant at
this point, but I believe that they are still handy.

The member function version is terse and reads left-to-right, which IMO
is a great plus. However, we should probably add a variadic `isa` member
function version to have the same casting API in both cases.

Thanks for the extensive TMP help @bzcheeseman!

Reviewed By: bzcheeseman

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D125709

show more ...

[analyzer][NFC] Demonstrate the use of CallDescriptionSet

Reviewed By: martong, xazax.hun

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113592

[analyzer][NFC] Switch to using CallDescription::matches() instead of isCalled()

This patch replaces each use of the previous API with the new one.
In variadic cases, it will use the ADL `matchesAny

[analyzer][NFC] Switch to using CallDescription::matches() instead of isCalled()

This patch replaces each use of the previous API with the new one.
In variadic cases, it will use the ADL `matchesAny(Call, CDs...)`
variadic function.
Also simplifies some code involving such operations.

Reviewed By: martong, xazax.hun

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113591

show more ...

[analyzer][NFC] Separate CallDescription from CallEvent

`CallDescriptions` deserve its own translation unit.
This patch simply moves the corresponding parts.
Also includes the `CallDescription.h` wh

[analyzer][NFC] Separate CallDescription from CallEvent

`CallDescriptions` deserve its own translation unit.
This patch simply moves the corresponding parts.
Also includes the `CallDescription.h` where it's necessary.

Reviewed By: martong, xazax.hun, Szelethus

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113587

show more ...

[analyzer][NFC] Don't bind values to ObjCForCollectionStmt, replace it with a GDM trait

Based on the discussion in D82598#2171312. Thanks @NoQ!

D82598 is titled "Get rid of statement liveness, beca

[analyzer][NFC] Don't bind values to ObjCForCollectionStmt, replace it with a GDM trait

Based on the discussion in D82598#2171312. Thanks @NoQ!

D82598 is titled "Get rid of statement liveness, because such a thing doesn't
exist", and indeed, expressions express a value, non-expression statements
don't.

if (a && get() || []{ return true; }())
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ has a value
~ has a value
~~~~~~~~~~ has a value
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ has a value
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ doesn't have a value

That is simple enough, so it would only make sense if we only assigned symbolic
values to expressions in the static analyzer. Yet the interface checkers can
access presents, among other strange things, the following two methods:

ProgramState::BindExpr(const Stmt *S, const LocationContext *LCtx, SVal V,
bool Invalidate=true)
ProgramState::getSVal(const Stmt *S, const LocationContext *LCtx)

So, what gives? Turns out, we make an exception for ReturnStmt (which we'll
leave for another time) and ObjCForCollectionStmt. For any other loops, in order
to know whether we should analyze another iteration, among other things, we
evaluate it's condition. Which is a problem for ObjCForCollectionStmt, because
it simply doesn't have one (CXXForRangeStmt has an implicit one!). In its
absence, we assigned the actual statement with a concrete 1 or 0 to indicate
whether there are any more iterations left. However, this is wildly incorrect,
its just simply not true that the for statement has a value of 1 or 0, we can't
calculate its liveness because that doesn't make any sense either, so this patch
turns it into a GDM trait.

Fixing this allows us to reinstate the assert removed in
https://reviews.llvm.org/rG032b78a0762bee129f33e4255ada6d374aa70c71.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86736

show more ...

[analyzer][NFC] Change LangOptions to CheckerManager in the shouldRegister* functions

Some checkers may not only depend on language options but also analyzer options.
To make this possible this patc

[analyzer][NFC] Change LangOptions to CheckerManager in the shouldRegister* functions

Some checkers may not only depend on language options but also analyzer options.
To make this possible this patch changes the parameter of the shouldRegister*
function to CheckerManager to be able to query the analyzer options when
deciding whether the checker should be registered.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D75271

show more ...

[analyzer] NFC: Introduce sub-classes for path-sensitive and basic reports.

Checkers are now required to specify whether they're creating a
path-sensitive report or a path-insensitive report by cons

[analyzer] NFC: Introduce sub-classes for path-sensitive and basic reports.

Checkers are now required to specify whether they're creating a
path-sensitive report or a path-insensitive report by constructing an
object of the respective type.

This makes BugReporter more independent from the rest of the Static Analyzer
because all Analyzer-specific code is now in sub-classes.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66572

llvm-svn: 371450

show more ...

[Clang] Migrate llvm::make_unique to std::make_unique

Now that we've moved to C++14, we no longer need the llvm::make_unique
implementation from STLExtras.h. This patch is a mechanical replacement
o

[Clang] Migrate llvm::make_unique to std::make_unique

Now that we've moved to C++14, we no longer need the llvm::make_unique
implementation from STLExtras.h. This patch is a mechanical replacement
of (hopefully) all the llvm::make_unique instances across the monorepo.

Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66259

llvm-svn: 368942

show more ...

[analyzer] Supply all checkers with a shouldRegister function

Introduce the boolean ento::shouldRegister##CHECKERNAME(const LangOptions &LO)
function very similarly to ento::register##CHECKERNAME. T

[analyzer] Supply all checkers with a shouldRegister function

Introduce the boolean ento::shouldRegister##CHECKERNAME(const LangOptions &LO)
function very similarly to ento::register##CHECKERNAME. This will force every
checker to implement this function, but maybe it isn't that bad: I saw a lot of
ObjC or C++ specific checkers that should probably not register themselves based
on some LangOptions (mine too), but they do anyways.

A big benefit of this is that all registry functions now register their checker,
once it is called, registration is guaranteed.

This patch is a part of a greater effort to reinvent checker registration, more
info here: D54438#1315953

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55424

llvm-svn: 352277

show more ...

Update the file headers across all of the LLVM projects in the monorepo
to reflect the new license.

We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the ne

Update the file headers across all of the LLVM projects in the monorepo
to reflect the new license.

We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.

Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.

llvm-svn: 351636

show more ...

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

ClangCheckerRegistry is a very non-obvious, poorly documented, weird concept.
It derives from CheckerRegistry, and is placed

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

ClangCheckerRegistry is a very non-obvious, poorly documented, weird concept.
It derives from CheckerRegistry, and is placed in lib/StaticAnalyzer/Frontend,
whereas it's base is located in lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core. It was, from what I can
imagine, used to circumvent the problem that the registry functions of the
checkers are located in the clangStaticAnalyzerCheckers library, but that
library depends on clangStaticAnalyzerCore. However, clangStaticAnalyzerFrontend
depends on both of those libraries.

One can make the observation however, that CheckerRegistry has no place in Core,
it isn't used there at all! The only place where it is used is Frontend, which
is where it ultimately belongs.

This move implies that since
include/clang/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/ClangCheckers.h only contained a single function:

class CheckerRegistry;

void registerBuiltinCheckers(CheckerRegistry &registry);

it had to re purposed, as CheckerRegistry is no longer available to
clangStaticAnalyzerCheckers. It was renamed to BuiltinCheckerRegistration.h,
which actually describes it a lot better -- it does not contain the registration
functions for checkers, but only those generated by the tblgen files.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54436

llvm-svn: 349275

show more ...

Misc typos fixes in ./lib folder

Summary: Found via `codespell -q 3 -I ../clang-whitelist.txt -L uint,importd,crasher,gonna,cant,ue,ons,orign,ned`

Reviewers: teemperor

Reviewed By: teemperor

Subs

Misc typos fixes in ./lib folder

Summary: Found via `codespell -q 3 -I ../clang-whitelist.txt -L uint,importd,crasher,gonna,cant,ue,ons,orign,ned`

Reviewers: teemperor

Reviewed By: teemperor

Subscribers: teemperor, jholewinski, jvesely, nhaehnle, whisperity, jfb, cfe-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55475

llvm-svn: 348755

show more ...

[analyzer] Rename trackNullOrUndefValue to trackExpressionValue

trackNullOrUndefValue is a long and confusing name,
and it does not actually reflect what the function is doing.
Give a function a new

[analyzer] Rename trackNullOrUndefValue to trackExpressionValue

trackNullOrUndefValue is a long and confusing name,
and it does not actually reflect what the function is doing.
Give a function a new name, with a relatively clear semantics.

Also remove some dead code.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52758

llvm-svn: 345064

show more ...

[analyzer] CFRetainReleaseChecker: Don't check C++ methods with the same name.

Don't try to understand what's going on when there's a C++ method called eg.
CFRetain().

Refactor the checker a bit, t

[analyzer] CFRetainReleaseChecker: Don't check C++ methods with the same name.

Don't try to understand what's going on when there's a C++ method called eg.
CFRetain().

Refactor the checker a bit, to use more modern APIs.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50866

llvm-svn: 340982

show more ...

[analyzer] [NFC] Split up RetainSummaryManager from RetainCountChecker - try #2

Turns out it can't be removed from the analyzer since it relies on CallEvent.

Moving to staticAnalyzer/core

Differen

[analyzer] [NFC] Split up RetainSummaryManager from RetainCountChecker - try #2

Turns out it can't be removed from the analyzer since it relies on CallEvent.

Moving to staticAnalyzer/core

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51023

llvm-svn: 340247

show more ...

Revert "[analyzer] [NFC] Split up RetainSummaryManager from RetainCountChecker"

This reverts commit a786521fa66c72edd308baff0c08961b6d964fb1.

Bots haven't caught up yet, but broke modules build wit

Revert "[analyzer] [NFC] Split up RetainSummaryManager from RetainCountChecker"

This reverts commit a786521fa66c72edd308baff0c08961b6d964fb1.

Bots haven't caught up yet, but broke modules build with:

../tools/clang/include/clang/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/MPIFunctionClassifier.h:18:10:
fatal error: cyclic dependency in module 'Clang_StaticAnalyzer_Core':
Clang_StaticAnalyzer_Core -> Clang_Analysis ->
Clang_StaticAnalyzer_Checkers -> Clang_StaticAnalyzer_Core
^

llvm-svn: 340117

show more ...

[analyzer] [NFC] Split up RetainSummaryManager from RetainCountChecker

ARCMigrator is using code from RetainCountChecker, which is a layering
violation (and it also does it badly, by using a differe

[analyzer] [NFC] Split up RetainSummaryManager from RetainCountChecker

ARCMigrator is using code from RetainCountChecker, which is a layering
violation (and it also does it badly, by using a different header, and
then relying on implementation being present in a header file).

This change splits up RetainSummaryManager into a separate library in
lib/Analysis, which can be used independently of a checker.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50934

llvm-svn: 340114

show more ...

[analyzer] Add support for constructors of arguments.

Once CFG-side support for argument construction contexts landed in r338436,
the analyzer could make use of them to evaluate argument constructor

[analyzer] Add support for constructors of arguments.

Once CFG-side support for argument construction contexts landed in r338436,
the analyzer could make use of them to evaluate argument constructors properly.

When evaluated as calls, constructors of arguments now use the variable region
of the parameter as their target. The corresponding stack frame does not yet
exist when the parameter is constructed, and this stack frame is created
eagerly.

Construction of functions whose body is unavailable and of virtual functions
is not yet supported. Part of the reason is the analyzer doesn't consistently
use canonical declarations o identify the function in these cases, and every
re-declaration or potential override comes with its own set of parameter
declarations. Also it is less important because if the function is not
inlined, there's usually no benefit in inlining the argument constructor.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49443

llvm-svn: 339745

show more ...

Remove \brief commands from doxygen comments.

This is similar to the LLVM change https://reviews.llvm.org/D46290.

We've been running doxygen with the autobrief option for a couple of
years now. Thi

Remove \brief commands from doxygen comments.

This is similar to the LLVM change https://reviews.llvm.org/D46290.

We've been running doxygen with the autobrief option for a couple of
years now. This makes the \brief markers into our comments
redundant. Since they are a visual distraction and we don't want to
encourage more \brief markers in new code either, this patch removes
them all.

Patch produced by

for i in $(git grep -l '\@brief'); do perl -pi -e 's/\@brief //g' $i & done
for i in $(git grep -l '\\brief'); do perl -pi -e 's/\\brief //g' $i & done

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46320

llvm-svn: 331834

show more ...