This is an archive of the discontinued LLVM Phabricator instance.

[clang-tidy] Fix bug in bugprone-use-after-move check
ClosedPublic

Authored by ymandel on Sep 6 2019, 10:48 AM.

Details

Summary

The bugprone-use-after-move check exhibits false positives for certain uses of
the C++17 if/switch init statements. These false positives are caused by a bug
in the ExprSequence calculations.

This revision adds tests for the false positives and fixes the corresponding
sequence calculation.

Patch by Shuai Wang.

Event Timeline

ymandel created this revision.Sep 6 2019, 10:48 AM
Herald added a project: Restricted Project. · View Herald TranscriptSep 6 2019, 10:48 AM
Herald added a subscriber: xazax.hun. · View Herald Transcript
ymandel edited the summary of this revision. (Show Details)Sep 6 2019, 11:01 AM
gribozavr accepted this revision.Sep 6 2019, 11:34 AM

Thanks for the quick fix!

clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/bugprone-use-after-move.cpp
1198

Unless you think it is redundant, could you also add

if (A a1; A(std::move(a2)).getInt() > 0) {}

Also some true positive tests would be good:

if (A a1; A(std::move(a2)).getInt() > A(std::move(a2)).getInt()) {}
A a1;
if (A a2 = std::move(a1); A(std::move(a1)) > 0) {}
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Sep 6 2019, 11:34 AM
ymandel updated this revision to Diff 219152.Sep 6 2019, 12:05 PM

Added tests.

ymandel marked 2 inline comments as done.Sep 6 2019, 12:07 PM
ymandel added inline comments.
clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/bugprone-use-after-move.cpp
1198

Done, but any idea why everything in this function is placed inside a loop? Looks like its just for scoping, but then why not just a compound statement, as is done above? This feels very odd.

gribozavr added inline comments.Sep 6 2019, 1:49 PM
clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/bugprone-use-after-move.cpp
1198

I think it is to ensure that the checker understands the sequencing. If it didn't, then the loop would trigger the "moved twice" logic.

mboehme added inline comments.
clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/bugprone-use-after-move.cpp
1198

(Original author of the test here.)

Correct. I should probably have added a comment explaining this when I wrote the test. Feel free to add such a comment.

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
ymandel marked an inline comment as done.
Herald added a project: Restricted Project. · View Herald TranscriptSep 9 2019, 5:57 AM
ymandel marked 3 inline comments as done.Sep 9 2019, 5:58 AM
ymandel added inline comments.
clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/bugprone-use-after-move.cpp
1198

Thanks for clarifying. I added a sentence to the comment as you suggested.