martong created this revision.
martong added reviewers: NoQ, Szelethus, baloghadamsoftware.
Herald added subscribers: cfe-commits, ASDenysPetrov, steakhal, Charusso,
gamesh411, dkrupp, donat.nagy, mikhail.ramalho, a.sidorin, rnkovacs, szepet,
xazax.hun, whisperity.
Herald added a project: clang.
martong added a comment.
I was thinking about the below test, but then I reverted back because I don't
want to add "fake" summaries for testing purposes. Perhaps adding a new checker
option could enable these "fake" summaries, @Szelethus what's your opinion?
diff --git a/clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/StdLibraryFunctionsChecker.cpp
b/clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/StdLibraryFunctionsChecker.cpp
index 64a412bb4db..c1022492429 100644
--- a/clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/StdLibraryFunctionsChecker.cpp
+++ b/clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/StdLibraryFunctionsChecker.cpp
@@ -736,6 +736,14 @@ void StdLibraryFunctionsChecker::initFunctionSummaries(
};
FunctionSummaryMap = {
+ {
+ "__test",
+ Summaries{
+ Summary(ArgTypes{IntTy, IntTy}, RetType{IntTy}, EvalCallAsPure)
+ .ArgConstraint(ArgumentCondition(0U, WithinRange,
SingleValue(1)))
+ .ArgConstraint(ArgumentCondition(1U, WithinRange,
SingleValue(1)))
+ }
+ },
// The isascii() family of functions.
// The behavior is undefined if the value of the argument is not
// representable as unsigned char or is not equal to EOF. See e.g. C99
diff --git a/clang/test/Analysis/std-c-library-functions-arg-constraints.c
b/clang/test/Analysis/std-c-library-functions-arg-constraints.c
index a20b90ad1cc..01109e28b99 100644
--- a/clang/test/Analysis/std-c-library-functions-arg-constraints.c
+++ b/clang/test/Analysis/std-c-library-functions-arg-constraints.c
@@ -85,3 +85,18 @@ void test_notnull_symbolic2(FILE *fp, int *buf) {
// bugpath-warning{{Function argument constraint is not satisfied}} \
// bugpath-note{{Function argument constraint is not satisfied}}
}
+
+int __test(int, int);
+
+void test_multiple_constraints(int x, int y) {
+ __test(x, y);
+ clang_analyzer_eval(x == 1); // \
+ // report-warning{{TRUE}} \
+ // bugpath-warning{{TRUE}} \
+ // bugpath-note{{TRUE}}
+ clang_analyzer_eval(y == 1); // \
+ // report-warning{{TRUE}} \
+ // bugpath-warning{{TRUE}} \
+ // bugpath-note{{TRUE}}
+}
+
Previously we induced a state split if there were multiple argument
constraints given for a function. This was because we called
`addTransition` inside the for loop.
The fix is to is to store the state and apply the next argument
constraint on that. And once the loop is finished we call `addTransition`.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
https://reviews.llvm.org/D76790
Files:
clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/StdLibraryFunctionsChecker.cpp
Index: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/StdLibraryFunctionsChecker.cpp
===================================================================
--- clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/StdLibraryFunctionsChecker.cpp
+++ clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/StdLibraryFunctionsChecker.cpp
@@ -452,23 +452,26 @@
const Summary &Summary = *FoundSummary;
ProgramStateRef State = C.getState();
+ ProgramStateRef NewState = State;
for (const ValueConstraintPtr& VC : Summary.ArgConstraints) {
- ProgramStateRef SuccessSt = VC->apply(State, Call, Summary);
- ProgramStateRef FailureSt = VC->negate()->apply(State, Call, Summary);
+ ProgramStateRef SuccessSt = VC->apply(NewState, Call, Summary);
+ ProgramStateRef FailureSt = VC->negate()->apply(NewState, Call, Summary);
// The argument constraint is not satisfied.
if (FailureSt && !SuccessSt) {
- if (ExplodedNode *N = C.generateErrorNode(State))
+ if (ExplodedNode *N = C.generateErrorNode(NewState))
reportBug(Call, N, C);
break;
} else {
- // Apply the constraint even if we cannot reason about the argument. This
- // means both SuccessSt and FailureSt can be true. If we weren't applying
- // the constraint that would mean that symbolic execution continues on a
- // code whose behaviour is undefined.
+ // We will apply the constraint even if we cannot reason about the
+ // argument. This means both SuccessSt and FailureSt can be true. If we
+ // weren't applying the constraint that would mean that symbolic
+ // execution continues on a code whose behaviour is undefined.
assert(SuccessSt);
- C.addTransition(SuccessSt);
+ NewState = SuccessSt;
}
}
+ if (NewState && NewState != State)
+ C.addTransition(NewState);
}
void StdLibraryFunctionsChecker::checkPostCall(const CallEvent &Call,
Index: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/StdLibraryFunctionsChecker.cpp
===================================================================
--- clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/StdLibraryFunctionsChecker.cpp
+++ clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/StdLibraryFunctionsChecker.cpp
@@ -452,23 +452,26 @@
const Summary &Summary = *FoundSummary;
ProgramStateRef State = C.getState();
+ ProgramStateRef NewState = State;
for (const ValueConstraintPtr& VC : Summary.ArgConstraints) {
- ProgramStateRef SuccessSt = VC->apply(State, Call, Summary);
- ProgramStateRef FailureSt = VC->negate()->apply(State, Call, Summary);
+ ProgramStateRef SuccessSt = VC->apply(NewState, Call, Summary);
+ ProgramStateRef FailureSt = VC->negate()->apply(NewState, Call, Summary);
// The argument constraint is not satisfied.
if (FailureSt && !SuccessSt) {
- if (ExplodedNode *N = C.generateErrorNode(State))
+ if (ExplodedNode *N = C.generateErrorNode(NewState))
reportBug(Call, N, C);
break;
} else {
- // Apply the constraint even if we cannot reason about the argument. This
- // means both SuccessSt and FailureSt can be true. If we weren't applying
- // the constraint that would mean that symbolic execution continues on a
- // code whose behaviour is undefined.
+ // We will apply the constraint even if we cannot reason about the
+ // argument. This means both SuccessSt and FailureSt can be true. If we
+ // weren't applying the constraint that would mean that symbolic
+ // execution continues on a code whose behaviour is undefined.
assert(SuccessSt);
- C.addTransition(SuccessSt);
+ NewState = SuccessSt;
}
}
+ if (NewState && NewState != State)
+ C.addTransition(NewState);
}
void StdLibraryFunctionsChecker::checkPostCall(const CallEvent &Call,
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
