================ @@ -0,0 +1,105 @@ +// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 %s -verify \ +// RUN: -analyzer-checker=core \ +// RUN: -analyzer-checker=alpha.security.taint.TaintPropagation \ +// RUN: -analyzer-checker=debug.ExprInspection + +// See issue https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/62663 + +template <typename T> void clang_analyzer_dump(T); +void clang_analyzer_warnIfReached(); +void clang_analyzer_numTimesReached(); +void clang_analyzer_isTainted(int); + +extern int scanf(const char *format, ...); + +class ActionHandler { +public: + virtual ~ActionHandler() = default; + virtual void onAction(int x, int &) { + clang_analyzer_dump(x + 1); // expected-warning {{101}} + } +}; + +class MyHandler final : public ActionHandler { +public: + void onAction(int x, int &) override { + clang_analyzer_dump(x + 2); // expected-warning {{202}} + } +}; + +void trust_static_types(ActionHandler *p) { + // This variable will help to see if conservative call evaluation happened or not. + int invalidation_detector; + + // At this point we don't know anything about the dynamic type of `*p`, thus the `onAction` call might be resolved to the default implementation, matching the static type. + invalidation_detector = 1000; + p->onAction(100, invalidation_detector); + clang_analyzer_dump(invalidation_detector); + // expected-warning@-1 {{1000}} on this path we trusted the type, and resolved the call to `ActionHandler::onAction(int, int&)` + // expected-warning@-2 {{conj}} on this path we conservatively evaluated the previous call + + clang_analyzer_numTimesReached(); // expected-warning {{2}} we only have that 2 paths here + // 1) inlined `ActionHandler::onAction(int, int&)` + // 2) conservatively eval called + + // Trust that the `*p` refers to an object with `MyHandler` static type (or to some other sub-class). + auto *q = static_cast<MyHandler *>(p); + (void)q; // Discard the result of the cast. We already learned the type `p` might refer to. + + invalidation_detector = 2000; + p->onAction(200, invalidation_detector); + clang_analyzer_dump(invalidation_detector); + // expected-warning@-1 {{2000}} on this path we trusted the type, and resolved the call to `MyHandler::onAction(int, int&)` + // expected-warning@-2 {{conj}} on this path we conservatively evaluated the previous call + + clang_analyzer_numTimesReached(); // expected-warning {{3}} we only have 3 paths here, not 4 + // 1) inlined 2 different callees + // 2) inlined only 1st + // 3) non were inlined ---------------- DonatNagyE wrote:
I don't think that "non" alone can be used as the subject of a phrase; did you mean to write "none"? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/69057 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
