* fix adding instantiation of first argument to an instantiation
* add support for function pointer template variables
* fix more cases where templates ending in ">>" are changed to end in "> >"
* fix travis build
* standard types can't be a template parameter name
* remove redundant level == 0 checks
* fix lambda in template variable
* fix a test
This reverts commit 2a4be5ae1c.
When I look at daca@home now there are still lots of false negatives. So this bailout did not cause as much false negatives as I thought.
strdup() allocates the string length plus one for a terminating null
character. Add one to compensate for this.
Fixes false positive buffer out of bounds on code like this:
void f() {
const char *a = "abcd";
char * b = strdup(a);
printf("%c", b[4]); // prints the terminating null character
free(b);
}
Also, add a testcase for valueFlowDynamicBufferSize() and add tests for
strdup(), malloc() and calloc().
* Add non const version of some methods of Token
The aim is to reduce the (ab)use of const_cast.
* Cleanup some more const_cast in valueflow
* Remove useless const_cast
* Remove some const_cast from templatesimplifier
* Remove some const_cast from valueflow
* template simplifier: add 2 new template parameter simplifications
int{} -> 0
decltype(int{}) -> int
This fixes reduced test cases like #9153. I'm not sure they will help
real world code that much.
It was necessary to increase the pass count to 4 to get #9153 completly
simplified.
* relax decltype(type{}) simplification to any type
Refactored simplifyTemplateAliases to iterate over template type aliases
rather than instantiations. This fixed template type aliases that were
not templates.
Don't instantiate templates in template type aliases. They will get
instantiated once the type alias is instantiated. This required
increasing the template simplifier pass count to 3 so one of the
existing tests continued to work.
Specialized member classes declared outsize the class were not
recognized. This caused the the member class to be instantiated rather
than the specialized class. We already had a test for this but it was
wrong so it went unnoticed.
With the following code
int f(int x, int y) {
if (!!(x != 0)) {
return y/x;
}
cppcheck would wrongly warn that there might be a division by zero in
"return y/x;".
Rikard Falkeborn
IOBYTE
Ken-Patrick
Sebastian
Paul Fultz II
Daniel Marjamäki
orbitcowboy