================
@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -analyzer-checker=cplusplus -verify %s
+// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -analyzer-checker=cplusplus -verify %s -DEMPTY_CLASS
+
+// expected-no-diagnostics
+
+// This test reproduces the issue that previously the static analyzer
+// initialized an [[__no_unique_address__]] empty field to zero,
+// over-writing a non-empty field with the same offset.
+
+namespace std {
+#ifdef EMPTY_CLASS
+
+ template <typename T>
+ class default_delete {
+ T dump();
+ static T x;
+ };
+ template <class _Tp, class _Dp = default_delete<_Tp> >
+#else
+
+ struct default_delete {};
+ template <class _Tp, class _Dp = default_delete >
+#endif
+ class unique_ptr {
+ [[__no_unique_address__]] _Tp * __ptr_;
+ [[__no_unique_address__]] _Dp __deleter_;
+
+ public:
+ explicit unique_ptr(_Tp* __p) noexcept
+ : __ptr_(__p),
+ __deleter_() {}
+
+ ~unique_ptr() {
+ delete __ptr_;
+ }
+ };
+}
+
+struct X {};
+
+int main()
+{
+ std::unique_ptr<X> a(new X()); // previously leak falsely reported
----------------
steakhal wrote:
I think we should mention that how did we have a FP here.
Like first `__ptr_` was assigned in the init-list, then the `__deleter_`, which
happened to overlap with the previous store and overwrite the pointer causing a
false leak diagnostic.
If we ever break this test again, that would help us understand the flow of
events here.
I recall debugging this exact case, and I wasn't happy spending that time. I
wish I had some pointers about this.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/138594
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
