================
@@ -3479,13 +3479,24 @@ PathDiagnosticPieceRef
MallocBugVisitor::VisitNode(const ExplodedNode *N,
// original reference count is positive, we should not report use-after-frees
// on objects deleted in such destructors. This can probably be improved
// through better shared pointer modeling.
- if (ReleaseDestructorLC) {
+ if (ReleaseDestructorLC && (ReleaseDestructorLC == CurrentLC ||
+ ReleaseDestructorLC->isParentOf(CurrentLC))) {
if (const auto *AE = dyn_cast<AtomicExpr>(S)) {
+ // Check for manual use of atomic builtins.
AtomicExpr::AtomicOp Op = AE->getOp();
if (Op == AtomicExpr::AO__c11_atomic_fetch_add ||
Op == AtomicExpr::AO__c11_atomic_fetch_sub) {
- if (ReleaseDestructorLC == CurrentLC ||
- ReleaseDestructorLC->isParentOf(CurrentLC)) {
+ BR.markInvalid(getTag(), S);
+ }
+ } else if (const auto *CE = dyn_cast<CallExpr>(S)) {
+ // Check for `std::atomic` and such. This covers both regular method
calls
+ // and operator calls.
+ if (const auto *MD =
+ dyn_cast_or_null<CXXMethodDecl>(CE->getDirectCallee())) {
+ const CXXRecordDecl *RD = MD->getParent();
+ // A bit wobbly with ".contains()" because it may be like
+ // "__atomic_base" or something.
+ if (StringRef(RD->getNameAsString()).contains("atomic")) {
----------------
steakhal wrote:
Do we have any safeguard to only match names within the `std` namespace?
Could you add a test case demonstrating that a user-defined type wouldn't be
mistaken for `atomic` here?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90918
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
