================
@@ -26,10 +27,41 @@ namespace {
class BuiltinFunctionChecker : public Checker<eval::Call> {
public:
bool evalCall(const CallEvent &Call, CheckerContext &C) const;
+
+private:
+ const CallDescriptionSet MicrosoftAnalysisAssume{
+ {{"__analysis_assume"}, 1},
+ {{"_Analysis_assume_"}, 1},
+ };
+
+ void evalCallAssume(const CallEvent &Call, CheckerContext &C) const;
};
}
+void BuiltinFunctionChecker::evalCallAssume(const CallEvent &Call,
+ CheckerContext &C) const {
+ assert(Call.getNumArgs() > 0);
+ assert(Call.getResultType()->isVoidType());
+ SVal Arg = Call.getArgSVal(0);
+
+ if (Arg.isUndef())
+ return; // Return true to model purity.
+
+ ProgramStateRef State = C.getState();
+ State = State->assume(Arg.castAs<DefinedOrUnknownSVal>(), true);
+
+ // FIXME: do we want to warn here? Not right now. The most reports might
+ // come from infeasible paths, thus being false positives.
----------------
NagyDonat wrote:
I'm pretty sure that we don't want to warn here. This analyzer-specific
hint/override is presumably used in code that's confusing for the analyzer, so
let's trust it.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/80456
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
