blob: 743c5ad0fa8cdecd0fa6f3092e651887fbffe37e (
plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
|
// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 %s \
// RUN: -analyzer-checker=debug.AnalysisOrder \
// RUN: -analyzer-config debug.AnalysisOrder:EvalCall=true \
// RUN: -analyzer-config debug.AnalysisOrder:PreCall=true \
// RUN: -analyzer-config debug.AnalysisOrder:PostCall=true \
// RUN: 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
// This test ensures that eval::Call event will be triggered for constructors.
class C {
public:
C(){};
C(int x){};
C(int x, int y){};
};
void foo() {
C C0;
C C1(42);
C *C2 = new C{2, 3};
delete C2;
}
// CHECK: PreCall (C::C) [CXXConstructorCall]
// CHECK-NEXT: EvalCall (C::C) {argno: 0} [CXXConstructorCall]
// CHECK-NEXT: PostCall (C::C) [CXXConstructorCall]
// CHECK-NEXT: PreCall (C::C) [CXXConstructorCall]
// CHECK-NEXT: EvalCall (C::C) {argno: 1} [CXXConstructorCall]
// CHECK-NEXT: PostCall (C::C) [CXXConstructorCall]
// CHECK-NEXT: PreCall (operator new) [CXXAllocatorCall]
// COMMENT: Operator new calls (CXXNewExpr) are intentionally not eval-called,
// COMMENT: because it does not make sense to eval call user-provided functions.
// COMMENT: 1) If the new operator can be inlined, then don't prevent it from
// COMMENT: inlining by having an eval-call of that operator.
// COMMENT: 2) If it can't be inlined, then the default conservative modeling
// COMMENT: is what we anyways want anyway.
// COMMENT: So the EvalCall event will not be triggered for operator new calls.
// CHECK-NOT: EvalCall
// CHECK-NEXT: PostCall (operator new) [CXXAllocatorCall]
// CHECK-NEXT: PreCall (C::C) [CXXConstructorCall]
// CHECK-NEXT: EvalCall (C::C) {argno: 2} [CXXConstructorCall]
// CHECK-NEXT: PostCall (C::C) [CXXConstructorCall]
// CHECK-NEXT: PreCall (operator delete) [CXXDeallocatorCall]
// COMMENT: Same reasoning as for CXXNewExprs above.
// CHECK-NOT: EvalCall
// CHECK-NEXT: PostCall (operator delete) [CXXDeallocatorCall]
|
