On 05.04.2013 4:40, Jordan Rose wrote:
On Apr 4, 2013, at 17:33 , Anton Yartsev <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
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?
Hm, good point. That seems like a case where the family of the symbol
doesn't matter, though—it's the family of the deallocator that
matters. If NewDeleteChecker is disabled, we should not warn about this:
int i;
delete &i;
Even though we won't get here, I think it's still better to be safe
than sorry, and say that AF_None is untracked.
Jordan
Left 'return true' for now as there are still several cases, when the
family is unknown for different reasons.
Commit at r178834 is a movement towards getting rid of these issues.
Another issue is related to checkPostObjCMessage() that is still
tracking unknown memory. Sent another mail to you and Anna concerning
this issue.
--
Anton
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
