================
@@ -542,6 +558,29 @@ class TrivialFunctionAnalysisVisitor
});
}
+ bool HasTrivialDestructor(const VarDecl *VD) {
+ return WithCachedResult(VD, [&]() {
+ auto QT = VD->getType();
+ if (QT.isPODType(VD->getASTContext()))
+ return true;
+ auto *Type = QT.getTypePtrOrNull();
+ if (!Type)
+ return false;
+ if (isa<LValueReferenceType>(Type))
+ return true; // T& does not run its destructor.
+ if (auto *RT = dyn_cast<RValueReferenceType>(Type)) {
+ // For T&&, we evaluate the destructor of T.
+ auto *T = RT->getPointeeType().getTypePtrOrNull();
+ return T && CanTriviallyDestruct(T);
+ }
----------------
rniwa wrote:
I was thinking of a case like this (which in the test):
```
void [[clang::annotate_type("webkit.nodelete")]]
swapObj(RefPtr<RefCountable>&& obj) {
// expected-warning@-1{{A function 'swapObj' has
[[clang::annotate_type("webkit.nodelete")]] but it contains code that could
destruct an object}}
m_obj.swap(obj);
}
```
where the argument variable gets a new value during the function such that it
would destruct. Although now that I'm thinking about it more, even in the case
of swap, we don't really destruct within this function so maybe we should treat
both references as safe after all.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/181576
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
