We need to be able to emit the diagnostic at PreImplicitCall,
and the patch implements this functionality.
However, for now the need for emitting such diagnostics is not all that great:
it is only necessary to not crash when emitting a false positive due to an
unrelated issue of having dead symbol collection not working properly.
Coming up with a non-false-positive test seems impossible with the current
set of checkers, though it is likely to be needed for good things as well
in the future.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56042
rdar://problem/
46911462
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk@350907
91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-
96231b3b80d8
} else if (Optional<PostInitializer> PIP = P.getAs<PostInitializer>()) {
return PathDiagnosticLocation(PIP->getInitializer()->getSourceLocation(),
SMng);
+ } else if (Optional<PreImplicitCall> PIC = P.getAs<PreImplicitCall>()) {
+ return PathDiagnosticLocation(PIC->getLocation(), SMng);
} else if (Optional<PostImplicitCall> PIE = P.getAs<PostImplicitCall>()) {
return PathDiagnosticLocation(PIE->getLocation(), SMng);
} else if (Optional<CallEnter> CE = P.getAs<CallEnter>()) {
--- /dev/null
+// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -w -analyzer-checker=core,cplusplus -verify %s
+
+// expected-no-diagnostics
+
+namespace no_crash_on_delete_dtor {
+// We were crashing when producing diagnostics for this code.
+struct S {
+ void foo();
+ ~S();
+};
+
+struct smart_ptr {
+ int x;
+ S *s;
+ smart_ptr(S *);
+ S *get() {
+ return (x || 0) ? nullptr : s;
+ }
+};
+
+void bar(smart_ptr p) {
+ delete p.get();
+ p.get()->foo();
+}
+} // namespace no_crash_on_delete_dtor