[PATCH] D63623: [clang-tidy] Add a check on expected return values of posix functions (except posix_openpt) in Android module.

[Jian Cai via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

jcai19 marked an inline comment as done.
jcai19 added inline comments.



Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/android/PosixReturnCheck.cpp:39
+  const auto &BinOp = *Result.Nodes.getNodeAs("binop");
+  diag(BinOp.getOperatorLoc(), "posix functions (except posix_openpt) never 
return negative values");
+}

jcai19 wrote:
> george.burgess.iv wrote:
> > would it be helpful to add fixits for simple cases? e.g. we can probably 
> > offer to replace `posix_whatever() < 0` with `posix_whatever() > 0` or `!= 
> > 0`
> While this fix is handy, I am not sure whether it will be safe enough under 
> all circumstances. For example, is it possible in the code block following 
> the check, the program calls another POSIX function and alter the errno 
> before its value it checked? In that case, maybe the proper fix should be 
> something as follows and fixing it by changing the binary operator may 
> obscure it:
> 
> int ret = posix_whatever();
> if (ret != 0)
After some offline discussion, I agree fixing the simple cases should be fine 
as programers should verify if the fixes proposed by clang-tidy are correct.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D63623/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D63623



___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[PATCH] D63623: [clang-tidy] Add a check on expected return values of posix functions (except posix_openpt) in Android module.

[Jian Cai via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

jcai19 updated this revision to Diff 206588.
jcai19 marked 4 inline comments as done.
jcai19 added a comment.

Update a test case.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D63623/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D63623

Files:
  clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/BugproneTidyModule.cpp
  clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/CMakeLists.txt
  clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/PosixReturnCheck.cpp
  clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/PosixReturnCheck.h
  clang-tools-extra/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
  clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/bugprone-posix-return.rst
  clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/list.rst
  clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/bugprone-posix-return.cpp

Index: clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/bugprone-posix-return.cpp
===
--- /dev/null
+++ clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/bugprone-posix-return.cpp
@@ -0,0 +1,117 @@
+// RUN: %check_clang_tidy %s bugprone-posix-return %t
+
+#define NULL nullptr
+#define ZERO 0
+#define NEGATIVE_ONE -1
+
+typedef long off_t;
+typedef decltype(sizeof(int)) size_t;
+typedef int pid_t;
+typedef struct __posix_spawn_file_actions* posix_spawn_file_actions_t;
+typedef struct __posix_spawnattr* posix_spawnattr_t;
+
+extern "C" int posix_fadvise(int fd, off_t offset, off_t len, int advice);
+extern "C" int posix_fallocate(int fd, off_t offset, off_t len);
+extern "C" int posix_madvise(void *addr, size_t len, int advice);
+extern "C" int posix_memalign(void **memptr, size_t alignment, size_t size);
+extern "C" int posix_openpt(int flags);
+extern "C" int posix_spawn(pid_t *pid, const char *path,
+const posix_spawn_file_actions_t *file_actions,
+const posix_spawnattr_t *attrp,
+char *const argv[], char *const envp[]);
+extern "C" int posix_spawnp(pid_t *pid, const char *file,
+ const posix_spawn_file_actions_t *file_actions,
+ const posix_spawnattr_t *attrp,
+ char *const argv[], char *const envp[]);
+
+void warningLEZero() {
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) < 0) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:33: warning:
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) <= 0) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:33: warning:
+  if (posix_fallocate(0, 0, 0) < 0) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:32: warning:
+  if (posix_madvise(NULL, 0, 0) < 0) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:33: warning:
+  if (posix_memalign(NULL, 0, 0) < 0) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:34: warning:
+  if (posix_spawn(NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, {NULL}, {NULL}) < 0) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:59: warning:
+  if (posix_spawnp(NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, {NULL}, {NULL}) < 0) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:60: warning:
+}
+
+void warningEqualsNegative() {
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) == -1) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:33: warning:
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) != -1) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:33: warning:
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) <= -1) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:33: warning:
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) < -1) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:33: warning:
+  if (posix_fallocate(0, 0, 0) == -1) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:32: warning:
+  if (posix_madvise(NULL, 0, 0) == -1) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:33: warning:
+  if (posix_memalign(NULL, 0, 0) == -1) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:34: warning:
+  if (posix_spawn(NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, {NULL}, {NULL}) == -1) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:59: warning:
+  if (posix_spawnp(NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, {NULL}, {NULL}) == -1) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:60: warning:
+}
+
+void WarningWithMacro() {
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) < ZERO) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:33: warning:
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) <= ZERO) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:33: warning:
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) == NEGATIVE_ONE) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:33: warning:
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) != NEGATIVE_ONE) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:33: warning:
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) <= NEGATIVE_ONE) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:33: warning:
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) < NEGATIVE_ONE) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:33: warning:
+}
+
+void noWarning() {
+  if (posix_openpt(0) < 0) {}
+  if (posix_openpt(0) <= 0) {}
+  if (posix_openpt(0) == -1) {}
+  if (posix_openpt(0) != -1) {}
+  if (posix_openpt(0) <= -1) {}
+  if (posix_openpt(0) < -1) {}
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) >= 0) {}
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) == 1) {}
+}
+
+namespace i {
+int posix_fadvise(int fd, off_t offset, off_t len, int advice);
+
+void noWarning() {
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) < 0) {}
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) >= 0) {} else {}
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) == -1) {}
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) != -1) {}
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) <= -1) {}
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) < -1) {}
+

[PATCH] D63623: [clang-tidy] Add a check on expected return values of posix functions (except posix_openpt) in Android module.

[Jian Cai via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

jcai19 updated this revision to Diff 206586.
jcai19 marked an inline comment as done.
jcai19 added a comment.

Move the check from android to bugprone.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D63623/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D63623

Files:
  clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/BugproneTidyModule.cpp
  clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/CMakeLists.txt
  clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/PosixReturnCheck.cpp
  clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/PosixReturnCheck.h
  clang-tools-extra/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
  clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/bugprone-posix-return.rst
  clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/list.rst
  clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/bugprone-posix-return.cpp

Index: clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/bugprone-posix-return.cpp
===
--- /dev/null
+++ clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/bugprone-posix-return.cpp
@@ -0,0 +1,117 @@
+// RUN: %check_clang_tidy %s bugprone-posix-return %t
+
+#define NULL nullptr
+#define ZERO 0
+#define NEGATIVE_ONE -1
+
+typedef long off_t;
+typedef decltype(sizeof(int)) size_t;
+typedef int pid_t;
+typedef struct __posix_spawn_file_actions* posix_spawn_file_actions_t;
+typedef struct __posix_spawnattr* posix_spawnattr_t;
+
+extern "C" int posix_fadvise(int fd, off_t offset, off_t len, int advice);
+extern "C" int posix_fallocate(int fd, off_t offset, off_t len);
+extern "C" int posix_madvise(void *addr, size_t len, int advice);
+extern "C" int posix_memalign(void **memptr, size_t alignment, size_t size);
+extern "C" int posix_openpt(int flags);
+extern "C" int posix_spawn(pid_t *pid, const char *path,
+const posix_spawn_file_actions_t *file_actions,
+const posix_spawnattr_t *attrp,
+char *const argv[], char *const envp[]);
+extern "C" int posix_spawnp(pid_t *pid, const char *file,
+ const posix_spawn_file_actions_t *file_actions,
+ const posix_spawnattr_t *attrp,
+ char *const argv[], char *const envp[]);
+
+void warningLEZero() {
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) < 0) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:33: warning:
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) <= 0) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:33: warning:
+  if (posix_fallocate(0, 0, 0) < 0) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:32: warning:
+  if (posix_madvise(NULL, 0, 0) < 0) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:33: warning:
+  if (posix_memalign(NULL, 0, 0) < 0) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:34: warning:
+  if (posix_spawn(NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, {NULL}, {NULL}) < 0) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:59: warning:
+  if (posix_spawnp(NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, {NULL}, {NULL}) < 0) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:60: warning:
+}
+
+void warningEqualsNegative() {
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) == -1) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:33: warning:
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) != -1) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:33: warning:
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) <= -1) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:33: warning:
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) < -1) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:33: warning:
+  if (posix_fallocate(0, 0, 0) == -1) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:32: warning:
+  if (posix_madvise(NULL, 0, 0) == -1) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:33: warning:
+  if (posix_memalign(NULL, 0, 0) == -1) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:34: warning:
+  if (posix_spawn(NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, {NULL}, {NULL}) == -1) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:59: warning:
+  if (posix_spawnp(NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, {NULL}, {NULL}) == -1) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:60: warning:
+}
+
+void WarningWithMacro() {
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) < ZERO) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:33: warning:
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) <= ZERO) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:33: warning:
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) == NEGATIVE_ONE) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:33: warning:
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) != NEGATIVE_ONE) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:33: warning:
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) <= NEGATIVE_ONE) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:33: warning:
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) < NEGATIVE_ONE) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:33: warning:
+}
+
+void noWarning() {
+  if (posix_openpt(0) < 0) {}
+  if (posix_openpt(0) <= 0) {}
+  if (posix_openpt(0) == -1) {}
+  if (posix_openpt(0) != -1) {}
+  if (posix_openpt(0) <= -1) {}
+  if (posix_openpt(0) < -1) {}
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) >= 0) {}
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) == 1) {}
+}
+
+namespace i {
+int posix_fadvise(int fd, off_t offset, off_t len, int advice);
+
+void noWarning() {
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) < 0) {}
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) <= 0) {}
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) == -1) {}
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) != -1) {}
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) <= -1) {}
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 

[PATCH] D63623: [clang-tidy] Add a check on expected return values of posix functions (except posix_openpt) in Android module.

[Dmitri Gribenko via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

gribozavr accepted this revision.
gribozavr added inline comments.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.



Comment at: clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/android-posix-return.rst:21
+  int ret = posix_fadvise(...);
+  if (ret != 0) ...

why not `if (posix_fadvise() != 0)` ?

Otherwise it looks like adding a variable is necessary for a fix.



Comment at: clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/android-posix-return.cpp:8
+typedef long off_t;
+typedef int size_t;
+typedef int pid_t;

`typedef decltype(sizeof(char)) size_t;`



Comment at: clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/android-posix-return.cpp:67
+  if (posix_openpt(0) == -1) {}
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) >= 0) {}
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) == 1) {}

What about

```
if (posix_fadvise() >= 0) { ... } else { ... }
```

?


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D63623/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D63623



___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[PATCH] D63623: [clang-tidy] Add a check on expected return values of posix functions (except posix_openpt) in Android module.

[Jian Cai via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

jcai19 added a comment.

In D63623#1556161 , @lebedev.ri wrote:

> In D63623#1552716 , @jcai19 wrote:
>
> > In D63623#1552679 , @lebedev.ri 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Why is this in android module?
> > >  Is that android-specific behavior, or posix?
> >
> >
> > I implemented it for Andriod as requested, but it would be completely fine 
> > to move it if it is better to place the check at a different location. 
> > Where do you suggest we should move this check to? Thanks.
>
>
> Either `misc` or `bugprone` or a new `posix` module.


Sounds good. Thanks for the clarification.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D63623/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D63623



___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[PATCH] D63623: [clang-tidy] Add a check on expected return values of posix functions (except posix_openpt) in Android module.

[Jian Cai via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

jcai19 marked 10 inline comments as done.
jcai19 added inline comments.



Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/android/PosixReturnCheck.cpp:23
+  binaryOperator(
+  hasOperatorName("<"),
+  hasLHS(callExpr(callee(functionDecl(matchesName("^::posix_"), 
unless(hasName("posix_openpt")),

george.burgess.iv wrote:
> should we also try to catch `<= ${negative_value}` (or `< ${negative_value}`)?
Sounds good. Will update the patch to catch these two cases as well.



Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/android/PosixReturnCheck.cpp:29
+  binaryOperator(
+  hasOperatorName("=="),
+  hasLHS(callExpr(callee(functionDecl(matchesName("^::posix_"), 
unless(hasName("posix_openpt")),

george.burgess.iv wrote:
> similarly, should we complain about `!= ${negative_value}`?
Sounds good. Will update the patch to catch these additional cases as well.



Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/android/PosixReturnCheck.cpp:39
+  const auto &BinOp = *Result.Nodes.getNodeAs("binop");
+  diag(BinOp.getOperatorLoc(), "posix functions (except posix_openpt) never 
return negative values");
+}

george.burgess.iv wrote:
> would it be helpful to add fixits for simple cases? e.g. we can probably 
> offer to replace `posix_whatever() < 0` with `posix_whatever() > 0` or `!= 0`
While this fix is handy, I am not sure whether it will be safe enough under all 
circumstances. For example, is it possible in the code block following the 
check, the program calls another POSIX function and alter the errno before its 
value it checked? In that case, maybe the proper fix should be something as 
follows and fixing it by changing the binary operator may obscure it:

int ret = posix_whatever();
if (ret != 0)


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D63623/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D63623



___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[PATCH] D63623: [clang-tidy] Add a check on expected return values of posix functions (except posix_openpt) in Android module.

[Roman Lebedev via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

lebedev.ri added a comment.

In D63623#1552716 , @jcai19 wrote:

> In D63623#1552679 , @lebedev.ri 
> wrote:
>
> > Why is this in android module?
> >  Is that android-specific behavior, or posix?
>
>
> I implemented it for Andriod as requested, but it would be completely fine to 
> move it if it is better to place the check at a different location. Where do 
> you suggest we should move this check to? Thanks.


Either `misc` or `bugprone` or a new `posix` module.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D63623/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D63623



___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[PATCH] D63623: [clang-tidy] Add a check on expected return values of posix functions (except posix_openpt) in Android module.

[Jian Cai via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

jcai19 updated this revision to Diff 206273.
jcai19 added a comment.

Fix typos and formatting issues.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D63623/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D63623

Files:
  clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/android/AndroidTidyModule.cpp
  clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/android/CMakeLists.txt
  clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/android/PosixReturnCheck.cpp
  clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/android/PosixReturnCheck.h
  clang-tools-extra/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
  clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/android-posix-return.rst
  clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/android-posix-return.cpp

Index: clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/android-posix-return.cpp
===
--- /dev/null
+++ clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/android-posix-return.cpp
@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
+// RUN: %check_clang_tidy %s android-posix-return %t
+
+#define NULL nullptr
+#define ZERO 0
+#define NEGATIVE_ONE -1
+
+typedef long off_t;
+typedef int size_t;
+typedef int pid_t;
+typedef struct __posix_spawn_file_actions* posix_spawn_file_actions_t;
+typedef struct __posix_spawnattr* posix_spawnattr_t;
+
+extern "C" int posix_fadvise(int fd, off_t offset, off_t len, int advice);
+extern "C" int posix_fallocate(int fd, off_t offset, off_t len);
+extern "C" int posix_madvise(void *addr, size_t len, int advice);
+extern "C" int posix_memalign(void **memptr, size_t alignment, size_t size);
+extern "C" int posix_openpt(int flags);
+extern "C" int posix_spawn(pid_t *pid, const char *path,
+const posix_spawn_file_actions_t *file_actions,
+const posix_spawnattr_t *attrp,
+char *const argv[], char *const envp[]);
+extern "C" int posix_spawnp(pid_t *pid, const char *file,
+ const posix_spawn_file_actions_t *file_actions,
+ const posix_spawnattr_t *attrp,
+ char *const argv[], char *const envp[]);
+
+void warningLtZero() {
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) < 0) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:33: warning:
+  if (posix_fallocate(0, 0, 0) < 0) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:32: warning:
+  if (posix_madvise(NULL, 0, 0) < 0) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:33: warning:
+  if (posix_memalign(NULL, 0, 0) < 0) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:34: warning:
+  if (posix_spawn(NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, {NULL}, {NULL}) < 0) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:59: warning:
+  if (posix_spawnp(NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, {NULL}, {NULL}) < 0) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:60: warning:
+}
+
+void warningEqualsNegative() {
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) == -1) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:33: warning:
+  if (posix_fallocate(0, 0, 0) == -1) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:32: warning:
+  if (posix_madvise(NULL, 0, 0) == -1) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:33: warning:
+  if (posix_memalign(NULL, 0, 0) == -1) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:34: warning:
+  if (posix_spawn(NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, {NULL}, {NULL}) == -1) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:59: warning:
+  if (posix_spawnp(NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, {NULL}, {NULL}) == -1) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:60: warning:
+}
+
+void WarningWithMacro() {
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) < ZERO) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:33: warning:
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) == NEGATIVE_ONE) {}
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:33: warning:
+}
+
+void noWarning() {
+  if (posix_openpt(0) < 0) {}
+  if (posix_openpt(0) == -1) {}
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) >= 0) {}
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) == 1) {}
+}
+
+namespace i {
+int posix_fadvise(int fd, off_t offset, off_t len, int advice);
+
+void noWarning() {
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) < 0) {}
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) == -1) {}
+}
+
+} // namespace i
+
+class G {
+ public:
+  int posix_fadvise(int fd, off_t offset, off_t len, int advice);
+
+  void noWarning() {
+if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) < 0) {}
+if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) == -1) {}
+  }
+};
Index: clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/android-posix-return.rst
===
--- /dev/null
+++ clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/android-posix-return.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+.. title:: clang-tidy - android-posix-return
+
+android-posix-return
+
+
+Checks if any calls to POSIX functions (except ``posix_openpt``) expect negative
+return values. These functions return either ``0`` on success or an ``errno`` on failure,
+which is positive only.
+
+Example buggy usage looks like:
+
+.. code-block:: c
+
+  if (posix_fadvise(...) < 0) {
+
+This will never happen as the return value is always non-negative. A simple fix could be:
+
+.. code-block:: c
+
+  int ret = posix_fadvise(...);
+  if (ret != 0) ...
Index: clang-tools-extra/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
===
--- clang-tools-extra/docs/Rele

[PATCH] D63623: [clang-tidy] Add a check on expected return values of posix functions (except posix_openpt) in Android module.

[Eugene Zelenko via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

Eugene.Zelenko added inline comments.



Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/android/PosixReturnCheck.h:1
+//===--- PosixReturnCheck.h - clang-tidy*- C++ 
-*-//
+//

Please use - before *- C++ -* to fill line. See other checks as example.



Comment at: clang-tools-extra/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst:199
 
+- New :doc:`android-posix-return
+  ` check.

Please move into new checks list (in alphabetical order).



Comment at: clang-tools-extra/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst:202
+
+  Checks if any alls to posix functions (except posix_openpt) expect negative
+  return values

calls? posix -> POSIX. Please enclose posix_openpt in double back-ticks.



Comment at: clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/android-posix-return.rst:4
+android-posix-return
+=
+

Please make same length as name.



Comment at: clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/android-posix-return.rst:6
+
+Checks if any calls to posix functions (except posix_openpt) expect negative
+return values. These functions return either 0 on success or an errno on 
failure,

Please make same changes as in Release Notes.



Comment at: clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/android-posix-return.rst:7
+Checks if any calls to posix functions (except posix_openpt) expect negative
+return values. These functions return either 0 on success or an errno on 
failure,
+which is positive only.

Please enclose 0 and errno into double back-ticks.



Comment at: clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/android-posix-return.rst:16
+
+This will never happen as the return value is always non-negative. A simple 
fix could be
+

Please add colon at end.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D63623/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D63623



___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[PATCH] D63623: [clang-tidy] Add a check on expected return values of posix functions (except posix_openpt) in Android module.

[Jian Cai via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

jcai19 added a comment.

In D63623#1552679 , @lebedev.ri wrote:

> Why is this in android module?
>  Is that android-specific behavior, or posix?


I implemented it for Andriod as requested, but it would be completely fine to 
move it if it is better to place the check at a different location. Where do 
you suggest we should move this check to? Thanks.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D63623/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D63623



___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[PATCH] D63623: [clang-tidy] Add a check on expected return values of posix functions (except posix_openpt) in Android module.

[George Burgess IV via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

george.burgess.iv added a comment.

just a few drive-by nits/comments from me. as usual, not super familiar with 
clang-tidy, so i won't be able to stamp this.

thanks!




Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/android/PosixReturnCheck.cpp:23
+  binaryOperator(
+  hasOperatorName("<"),
+  hasLHS(callExpr(callee(functionDecl(matchesName("^::posix_"), 
unless(hasName("posix_openpt")),

should we also try to catch `<= ${negative_value}` (or `< ${negative_value}`)?



Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/android/PosixReturnCheck.cpp:29
+  binaryOperator(
+  hasOperatorName("=="),
+  hasLHS(callExpr(callee(functionDecl(matchesName("^::posix_"), 
unless(hasName("posix_openpt")),

similarly, should we complain about `!= ${negative_value}`?



Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/android/PosixReturnCheck.cpp:36
+
+
+void PosixReturnCheck::check(const MatchFinder::MatchResult &Result) {

nit: please clang-format



Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/android/PosixReturnCheck.cpp:39
+  const auto &BinOp = *Result.Nodes.getNodeAs("binop");
+  diag(BinOp.getOperatorLoc(), "posix functions (except posix_openpt) never 
return negative values");
+}

would it be helpful to add fixits for simple cases? e.g. we can probably offer 
to replace `posix_whatever() < 0` with `posix_whatever() > 0` or `!= 0`



Comment at: clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/android-posix-return.cpp:57
+
+void WarningWithMacro () {
+  if (posix_fadvise(0, 0, 0, 0) < ZERO) {}

nit: no space in `Macro ()`, please


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D63623/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D63623



___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[PATCH] D63623: [clang-tidy] Add a check on expected return values of posix functions (except posix_openpt) in Android module.

[Roman Lebedev via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

lebedev.ri added a comment.

Why is this in android module?
Is that android-specific behavior, or posix?


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D63623/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D63623



___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits