void DereferenceChecker::checkBind(SVal L, SVal V, const Stmt *S,
CheckerContext &C) const {
- // If we're binding to a reference, check if the value is potentially null.
+ // If we're binding to a reference, check if the value is known to be null.
if (V.isUndef())
return;
}
}
- // From here on out, assume the value is non-null.
- C.addTransition(StNonNull);
+ // Unlike a regular null dereference, initializing a reference with a
+ // dereferenced null pointer does not actually cause a runtime exception in
+ // Clang's implementation of references.
+ //
+ // int &r = *p; // safe??
+ // if (p != NULL) return; // uh-oh
+ // r = 5; // trap here
+ //
+ // The standard says this is invalid as soon as we try to create a "null
+ // reference" (there is no such thing), but turning this into an assumption
+ // that 'p' is never null will not match our actual runtime behavior.
+ // So we do not record this assumption, allowing us to warn on the last line
+ // of this example.
+ //
+ // We do need to add a transition because we may have generated a sink for
+ // the "implicit" null dereference.
+ C.addTransition(State, this);
}
void ento::registerDereferenceChecker(CheckerManager &mgr) {
}
}
-void testRef() {
+void testNullReference() {
int *x = 0;
int &y = *x; // expected-warning{{Dereference of null pointer}}
y = 5;
}
+void testRetroactiveNullReference(int *x) {
+ // According to the C++ standard, there is no such thing as a
+ // "null reference". So the 'if' statement ought to be dead code.
+ // However, Clang (and other compilers) don't actually check that a pointer
+ // value is non-null in the implementation of references, so it is possible
+ // to produce a supposed "null reference" at runtime. The analyzer shoeuld
+ // still warn when it can prove such errors.
+ int &y = *x;
+ if (x != 0)
+ return;
+ y = 5; // expected-warning{{Dereference of null pointer}}
+}
+
// ------------------------------------
// False negatives