On 05.04.2013 3:52, Jordan Rose wrote:
On Apr 4, 2013, at 16:46 , Anton Yartsev <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
+ if (Family == AF_Malloc &&
+ (!Filter.CMallocOptimistic && !Filter.CMallocPessimistic))
+ return false;
+
+ if ((Family == AF_CXXNew || Family == AF_CXXNewArray) &&
+ !Filter.CNewDeleteChecker)
+ return false;
+
+ return true;
+}
+
+bool MallocChecker::isTrackedFamily(CheckerContext &C,
+ const Stmt *AllocDeallocStmt)
const {
+ return isTrackedFamily(getAllocationFamily(C, AllocDeallocStmt));
+}
+
+bool MallocChecker::isTrackedFamily(CheckerContext &C, SymbolRef
Sym) const {
+ const RefState *RS = C.getState()->get<RegionState>(Sym);
+
+ return RS ? isTrackedFamily(RS->getAllocationFamily())
+ : isTrackedFamily(AF_None);
+}
Uh, this is not correct; this will say that AF_None is a tracked
family, which means any symbol with no RefState has a tracked family.
This is made for cases:
int i;
free(&i);
and similar.
We may add something like assert(family != AF_None) somewhere else if
AF_None is not acceptable. How do you think?
A (fully-covered) switch statement might also be safer than the series
of ifs, because then we won't forget to update it later.
Committed at r178820.
Jordan
--
Anton
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
