================ @@ -0,0 +1,211 @@ +//===- BoundsChecking.h - Bounds checking related APIs ----------*- C++ -*-===// +// +// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM Exceptions. +// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information. +// SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception +// +//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===// +// +// This file defines APIs for performing a bounds check (i.e. comparing a +// symbolic Offset value to zero and a symbolic Extent value) and composing +// descriptions that explain its results. +// +// This is intended as a replacement for `ProgramState::assumeInBound` to +// avoid its incorrect logic and compensate for deficiencies of other parts of +// the analyzer. +// +//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===// + +#ifndef LLVM_CLANG_STATICANALYZER_CORE_PATHSENSITIVE_BOUNDSCHECKING_H +#define LLVM_CLANG_STATICANALYZER_CORE_PATHSENSITIVE_BOUNDSCHECKING_H +#include "clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/PathSensitive/CheckerContext.h" +#include "llvm/Support/FormatVariadic.h" +#include <optional> + +namespace clang { +namespace ento { + +/// If `E` is an array subscript expression with a base that is "clean" (= not +/// modified by pointer arithmetic = the beginning of a memory region), return +/// it as a pointer to ArraySubscriptExpr; otherwise return nullptr. +/// This helper function is used by two separate heuristics that are only valid +/// in these "clean" cases. +const ArraySubscriptExpr *getAsCleanArraySubscriptExpr(const Expr *E, ---------------- NagyDonat wrote:
> Is this API ever useful for the clients? If it is an implementation detail it > should not be in a public header. You're right that this is an oddly specific helper function, but it is also used by `ArrayBoundChecker.cpp` (to implement `isObviouslyNonnegative`) in addition to the use in `BoundsChecking.h` (the inline definition of `SizeUnit::forExpr`). As I don't want to duplicate its logic in these two TUs, I think the least bad approach is declaring it here in this header. (If it was a bit shorter, I would duplicate it.) https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/202372 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
