================
@@ -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;
+
+ return isSmartPtrName(ND->getName());
+ }
+
+ // Also try RecordType (for custom smart pointer implementations)
+ if (const auto *RD = QT->getAsCXXRecordDecl()) {
+ // Accept any custom unique_ptr or shared_ptr implementation
+ return isSmartPtrName(RD->getName());
+ }
+
+ return false;
+}
+
+/// Check if a record type has smart pointer fields (directly or in base
+/// classes).
+static bool hasSmartPtrField(const CXXRecordDecl *CRD) {
----------------
ivanmurashko wrote:
You're right about the naming inconsistency. I've updated all the function
names to consistently use "SmartOwningPtr" terminology throughout the codebase,
see 08a24effa0007135844fb37d0ecf6e8f1972a45b
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
