This uses the lifetime analysis to check when comparing pointer that point to different objects:
```cpp
int main(void)
{
int foo[10];
int bar[10];
int diff;
if(foo > bar) // Undefined Behavior
{
diff = 1;
}
return 0;
}
```
This reworks constStatement to find more issues. It catches issue [8827](https://trac.cppcheck.net/ticket/8827):
```cpp
extern void foo(int,const char*,int);
void f(int value)
{
foo(42,"test",42),(value&42);
}
```
It also catches from issue [8451](https://trac.cppcheck.net/ticket/8451):
```cpp
void f1(int x) {
1;
(1);
(char)1;
((char)1);
!x;
(!x);
~x;
}
```
And also:
```cpp
void f(int x) {
x;
}
```
The other examples are not caught due to incomplete AST.
The unsigned less than zero checker looked for patterns like "<= 0".
Switching to use valueflow improves the checker in a few aspects.
First, it removes false positives where instead of 0, the code is using
0L, 0U, etc. Instead of having to hard code the different variants of 0,
valueflow handles this automatically. This fixes FPs on the form
uint32_t value = 0xFUL;
void f() {
if (value < 0u)
{
value = 0u;
}
}
where 0u was previously not recognized by the checker. This fixes#8836.
Morover, it makes it possible to handle templates properly. In commit
fa076598ad, all warnings inside templates
were made inconclusive, since the checker had no idea if "0" came from
a template parameter or not.
This makes it possible to not warn for the following case which was
reported as a FP in #3233
template<int n> void foo(unsigned int x) {
if (x <= n);
}
foo<0>();
but give a warning for the following case
template<int n> void foo(unsigned int x) {
if (x <= 0);
}
Previously, both these cases gave inconclusive warnings.
Finally, it makes it possible to give warnings for the following code:
void f(unsigned x) {
int y = 0;
if (x <= y) {}
}
Also, previously, the checker for unsigned variables larger than 0, the
checker used the string of the astoperand. This meant that for code like
the following:
void f(unsigned x, unsigned y) {
if (x -y >= 0) {}
}
cppcheck would output
[unsigned-expression-positive.c] (style) Unsigned variable '-' can't be negative so it is unnecessary to test it.
using expressionString() instead gives a better error message
[unsigned-expression-positive.c] (style) Unsigned expression 'x-z' can't be negative so it is unnecessary to test it.
Add a check for function arguments that can be constant:
```cpp
extern void bar(int);
void f(int x) {
bar((x & 0x01) >> 7); // function 'bar' is always called with a '0'-argument
}
```
The while part of a do-while loop looks almost like a function call, so
extend the check for function calls to ignore while-statements.
Note that there was only an FP when checking c-code, since the check is
disabled for c++-code. Therefore, make sure the test cases are run on a
c-file.
Daniel Marjamäki
Paul Fultz II
rikardfalkeborn