================
@@ -3068,12 +3124,242 @@ void MallocChecker::checkDeadSymbols(SymbolReaper
&SymReaper,
C.addTransition(state->set<RegionState>(RS), N);
}
+// Helper function to check if a name is a recognized smart pointer name
+static bool isSmartPtrName(StringRef Name) {
+ return Name == "unique_ptr" || Name == "shared_ptr";
+}
+
+// Allowlist of owning smart pointers we want to recognize.
+// Start with unique_ptr and shared_ptr. (intentionally exclude weak_ptr)
+static bool isSmartOwningPtrType(QualType QT) {
+ QT = QT->getCanonicalTypeUnqualified();
+
+ // First try TemplateSpecializationType (for std smart pointers)
+ if (const auto *TST = QT->getAs<TemplateSpecializationType>()) {
+ const TemplateDecl *TD = TST->getTemplateName().getAsTemplateDecl();
+ if (!TD)
+ return false;
+
+ const auto *ND = dyn_cast_or_null<NamedDecl>(TD->getTemplatedDecl());
+ if (!ND)
+ return false;
+
+ // Check if it's in std namespace
+ if (!isWithinStdNamespace(ND))
+ return false;
----------------
NagyDonat wrote:
What is the rationale behind checking for namespace `std` here while you don't
check it in two other situations?
My first instinct is that I'd prefer consistently checking for namespace `std`
(because I'm vary of making assumptions about the behavior of custom
user-defined classes), but I can also understand consistently not checking
(because that would more aggressively eliminate results that may be false
positive). I don't see a reason for this intermediate approach, but I'm not
opposed to it if you can explain why is this the right thing to do. (In that
case, please add a source code comment with a brief explanation.)
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/152751
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
