[PATCH 28/49] analyzer: new files: analyzer.{cc|h}

[Jeff Law]

On Fri, 2019-11-15 at 20:23 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> gcc/ChangeLog:
> 	* analyzer/analyzer.cc: New file.
> 	* analyzer/analyzer.h: New file.
> ---
>  gcc/analyzer/analyzer.cc | 125
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  gcc/analyzer/analyzer.h  | 126
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 251 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 gcc/analyzer/analyzer.cc
>  create mode 100644 gcc/analyzer/analyzer.h
> 
> diff --git a/gcc/analyzer/analyzer.cc b/gcc/analyzer/analyzer.cc
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..399925c
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/analyzer/analyzer.cc
> @@ -0,0 +1,125 @@
> +/* Utility functions for the analyzer.
> +   Copyright (C) 2019 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> +   Contributed by David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat.com>.
> +
> +This file is part of GCC.
> +
> +GCC is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
> +under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> +the Free Software Foundation; either version 3, or (at your option)
> +any later version.
> +
> +GCC is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
> +WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> +MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU
> +General Public License for more details.
> +
> +You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
> +along with GCC; see the file COPYING3.  If not see
> +<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>;.  */
> +
> +#include "config.h"
> +#include "gcc-plugin.h"
> +#include "system.h"
> +#include "coretypes.h"
> +#include "tree.h"
> +#include "gimple.h"
> +#include "diagnostic.h"
> +#include "intl.h"
> +#include "analyzer/analyzer.h"
> +
> +/* Helper function for checkers.  Is the CALL to the given function
> name?  */
> +
> +bool
> +is_named_call_p (const gcall *call, const char *funcname)
> +{
> +  gcc_assert (funcname);
> +
> +  tree fndecl = gimple_call_fndecl (call);
> +  if (!fndecl)
> +    return false;
> +
> +  return 0 == strcmp (IDENTIFIER_POINTER (DECL_NAME (fndecl)),
> funcname);
> +}
> +
> +/* Helper function for checkers.  Is the CALL to the given function
> name,
> +   and with the given number of arguments?  */
> +
> +bool
> +is_named_call_p (const gcall *call, const char *funcname,
> +		 unsigned int num_args)
> +{
> +  gcc_assert (funcname);
> +
> +  if (!is_named_call_p (call, funcname))
> +    return false;
> +
> +  if (gimple_call_num_args (call) != num_args)
> +    return false;
> +
> +  return true;
These seem generic enough to live elsewhere.

> +}
> +
> +/* Return true if stmt is a setjmp call.  */
> +
> +bool
> +is_setjmp_call_p (const gimple *stmt)
> +{
> +  /* TODO: is there a less hacky way to check for "setjmp"?  */
> +  if (const gcall *call = dyn_cast <const gcall *> (stmt))
> +    if (is_named_call_p (call, "_setjmp", 1))
> +      return true;
> +
> +  return false;
> +}
> +
> +/* Return true if stmt is a longjmp call.  */
> +
> +bool
> +is_longjmp_call_p (const gcall *call)
> +{
> +  /* TODO: is there a less hacky way to check for "longjmp"?  */
> +  if (is_named_call_p (call, "longjmp", 2))
> +    return true;
> +
> +  return false;
> +}
I thought we already had routines to detect these.  We certainly have
*code* to detect them.   If it's the former we really just want one
implementation (that hands the various permutations we've seen through
the years).  If it's the latter, then we probably want to use these
routines to simplify those implementations.


> +
> +/* Generate a label_text instance by formatting FMT, using a
> +   temporary clone of the global_dc's printer (thus using its
> +   formatting callbacks).
> +
> +   Colorize if the global_dc supports colorization and CAN_COLORIZE
> is
> +   true.  */
> +
> +label_text
> +make_label_text (bool can_colorize, const char *fmt, ...)
> +{
> +  pretty_printer *pp = global_dc->printer->clone ();
> +  pp_clear_output_area (pp);
> +
> +  if (!can_colorize)
> +    pp_show_color (pp) = false;
> +
> +  text_info ti;
> +  rich_location rich_loc (line_table, UNKNOWN_LOCATION);
> +
> +  va_list ap;
> +
> +  va_start (ap, fmt);
> +
> +  ti.format_spec = _(fmt);
> +  ti.args_ptr = ≈
> +  ti.err_no = 0;
> +  ti.x_data = NULL;
> +  ti.m_richloc = &rich_loc;
> +
> +  pp_format (pp, &ti);
> +  pp_output_formatted_text (pp);
> +
> +  va_end (ap);
> +
> +  label_text result = label_text::take (xstrdup (pp_formatted_text
> (pp)));
> +  delete pp;
> +  return result;
> +}
Is this better in the pretty-printer infrastructure?  

Jeff