Skip to content

[Analysis] Make ThreadSafety correctly handle base class destructors #169593

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 26, 2025
+13 −1
Merged

[Analysis] Make ThreadSafety correctly handle base class destructors #169593

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion clang/lib/Analysis/ThreadSafety.cpp
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -2820,7 +2820,7 @@ void ThreadSafetyAnalyzer::runAnalysis(AnalysisDeclContext &AC) {
case CFGElement::AutomaticObjectDtor: {
CFGAutomaticObjDtor AD = BI.castAs<CFGAutomaticObjDtor>();
const auto *DD = AD.getDestructorDecl(AC.getASTContext());
if (!DD->hasAttrs())
if (!DD || !DD->hasAttrs())
break;

LocksetBuilder.handleCall(
Expand Down
12 changes: 12 additions & 0 deletions clang/test/SemaCXX/no-warn-thread-safety-analysis.cpp
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -verify -std=c++11 -Wthread-safety -Wthread-safety-pointer -Wthread-safety-beta -Wno-thread-safety-negative -fcxx-exceptions -DUSE_CAPABILITY=0 %s
Copy link
Contributor

@melver melver Nov 26, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why was a new test file created for this and not just added to the existing suite: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/clang/test/SemaCXX/warn-thread-safety-analysis.cpp ?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@boomanaiden154 boomanaiden154 Nov 26, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There weren't any existing cases in there that used expected-no-diagnostics, and I've seen similar cases split similarly between positive and negative checks like this.

// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -verify -std=c++11 -Wthread-safety -Wthread-safety-pointer -Wthread-safety-beta -Wno-thread-safety-negative -fcxx-exceptions -DUSE_CAPABILITY=1 %s
// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -verify -std=c++17 -Wthread-safety -Wthread-safety-pointer -Wthread-safety-beta -Wno-thread-safety-negative -fcxx-exceptions -DUSE_CAPABILITY=0 %s
// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -verify -std=c++17 -Wthread-safety -Wthread-safety-pointer -Wthread-safety-beta -Wno-thread-safety-negative -fcxx-exceptions -DUSE_CAPABILITY=1 %s
// expected-no-diagnostics

struct foo {
~foo();
};
struct bar : foo {};
struct baz : bar {};
baz foobar(baz a) { return a; }