================
@@ -0,0 +1,86 @@
+// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1
-analyzer-checker=core,alpha.cplusplus.ReportDanglingPtrDeref \
+// RUN: -analyzer-config cfg-lifetime=true -analyzer-output=text -verify %s
+
+void test_case_one() {
+ int *ptr = nullptr;
+ {
+ int num = 5;
+ ptr = #
+ }
+ // expected-note@-1 {{'num' is destroyed here}}
+ *ptr = 6;
+ // expected-warning@-1 {{Use of 'num' after its lifetime ended}}
+ // expected-note@-2 {{Use of 'num' after its lifetime ended}}
+}
+
+void test_case_two() {
+ int *ptr_one = nullptr;
+ int *ptr_two = nullptr;
+ {
+ int n = 1;
+ int m = 2;
+ ptr_one = &n;
+ ptr_two = &m;
+ }
+ // expected-note@-1 {{'n' is destroyed here}}
+ // expected-note@-2 {{'m' is destroyed here}}
+ *ptr_one = 6;
+ *ptr_two = 7;
+ // expected-warning@-2 {{Use of 'n' after its lifetime ended}}
+ // expected-note@-3 {{Use of 'n' after its lifetime ended}}
----------------
benedekaibas wrote:
I agree that the note can feel as a duplicate of the warning, but it is needed
for cases where the destruction point and the point of the dangling reference
are different locations. It might seem confusing in the test suite for some
cases, but I think we should not change it.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/209278
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
