llvm-project.git/clang/lib/Analysis/FlowSensitive/Models/ChromiumCheckModel.cpp, branch main Unnamed repository; edit this file 'description' to name the repository. [clang][analysis][NFC]add static for internal linkage function (#117481) 2024-11-26T13:50:35+00:00 Congcong Cai congcongcai0907@163.com 2024-11-26T13:50:35+00:00 65c36179be68dda0d1cc5d7e5c5b312a6b52cc0e Detected by misc-use-internal-linkage 
Detected by misc-use-internal-linkage
 [clang][dataflow] Fix casting in `ChromiumCheckModel`. (#101640) 2024-08-02T13:32:47+00:00 Pasquale Riello pas.riello@gmail.com 2024-08-02T13:32:47+00:00 28d4149ba0c1748f570fecb683fb1fda62bfd974 `getDirectCallee()` may return a null pointer if the callee is not a `FunctionDecl` (for example when using function pointers), this requires to use `dyn_cast_or_null` instead of `dyn_cast`. 
`getDirectCallee()` may return a null pointer if the callee is not a
`FunctionDecl` (for example when using function pointers), this requires
to use `dyn_cast_or_null` instead of `dyn_cast`.
 [clang] Use StringRef::{starts,ends}_with (NFC) (#75149) 2023-12-13T16:54:13+00:00 Kazu Hirata kazu@google.com 2023-12-13T16:54:13+00:00 f3dcc2351cff7b26c9870d737e5d431551542d9e This patch replaces uses of StringRef::{starts,ends}with with StringRef::{starts,ends}_with for consistency with std::{string,string_view}::{starts,ends}_with in C++20. I'm planning to deprecate and eventually remove StringRef::{starts,ends}with. 
This patch replaces uses of StringRef::{starts,ends}with with
StringRef::{starts,ends}_with for consistency with
std::{string,string_view}::{starts,ends}_with in C++20.

I'm planning to deprecate and eventually remove
StringRef::{starts,ends}with.
 [clang][nullability] Use `proves()` and `assume()` instead of deprecated synonyms. (#70297) 2023-10-30T12:18:57+00:00 martinboehme mboehme@google.com 2023-10-30T12:18:57+00:00 526c9b7e37fa12abc17eebc68f21c1d213477ba8 






[dataflow] Remove deprecated BoolValue flow condition accessors
2023-07-13T07:39:23+00:00

Sam McCall
sam.mccall@gmail.com

2023-07-13T05:07:47+00:00

6272226b9f94ba252eabfa7d32e44408b8a12883

Use the Formula versions instead, now.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D155152





Use the Formula versions instead, now.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D155152







[clang][dataflow] Change `transfer` API to take a reference.
2023-02-15T15:37:21+00:00

Yitzhak Mandelbaum
yitzhakm@google.com

2023-02-13T16:27:39+00:00

6b991ba486b64f09e7d90ebc1fc2118ab48c8bff

The provided `CFGElement` is never null, so a reference is a more precise type.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D143920





The provided `CFGElement` is never null, so a reference is a more precise type.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D143920







[clang][dataflow] Modify `transfer` in `DataflowModel` to take `CFGElement` as input instead of `Stmt`.
2022-09-19T18:40:29+00:00

Wei Yi Tee
wyt@google.com

2022-09-19T18:13:50+00:00

41d52c5a7f7ad1acf8e84ad6d7f04813c1a5a7ec

To keep API of transfer functions consistent.

The single use of this transfer function in `ChromiumCheckModel` is also updated.

Reviewed By: gribozavr2, sgatev

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D133933





To keep API of transfer functions consistent.

The single use of this transfer function in `ChromiumCheckModel` is also updated.

Reviewed By: gribozavr2, sgatev

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D133933







[clang][dataflow] Add modeling of Chromium's CHECK functionality
2022-03-18T14:39:23+00:00

Yitzhak Mandelbaum
yitzhakm@google.com

2022-03-09T20:14:43+00:00

a36c2dd6d54c6ff854cb4872cd2831ed995e9275

Chromium's implementation of assertions (`CHECK`, `DCHECK`, etc.) are not
annotated with "noreturn", by default. This patch adds a model of the logical
implications of successfully executing one of these assertions.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D121797





Chromium's implementation of assertions (`CHECK`, `DCHECK`, etc.) are not
annotated with "noreturn", by default. This patch adds a model of the logical
implications of successfully executing one of these assertions.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D121797