Adding a checker (misc-new-delete-overloads) that detects mismatched overloads of operator new and operator delete. Corresponds to the CERT C++ secure coding rule: https://www.securecoding.cert.org/confluence/display/cplusplus/DCL54-CPP.+Overload+allocation+and+deallocation+functions+as+a+pair+in+the+same+scope
llvm-svn: 248791
diff --git a/clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/misc-new-delete-overloads.cpp b/clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/misc-new-delete-overloads.cpp
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6bb73c7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/misc-new-delete-overloads.cpp
@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
+// RUN: %python %S/check_clang_tidy.py %s misc-new-delete-overloads %t -- -std=c++14
+
+struct S {
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE+1]]:9: warning: declaration of 'operator new' has no matching declaration of 'operator delete' at the same scope [misc-new-delete-overloads]
+ void *operator new(size_t size) noexcept;
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE+1]]:9: warning: declaration of 'operator new[]' has no matching declaration of 'operator delete[]' at the same scope
+ void *operator new[](size_t size) noexcept;
+};
+
+// CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE+1]]:7: warning: declaration of 'operator new' has no matching declaration of 'operator delete' at the same scope
+void *operator new(size_t size) noexcept;
+
+struct T {
+ // Sized deallocations are not enabled by default, and so this new/delete pair
+ // does not match. However, we expect only one warning, for the new, because
+ // the operator delete is a placement delete and we do not warn on mismatching
+ // placement operations.
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE+1]]:9: warning: declaration of 'operator new' has no matching declaration of 'operator delete' at the same scope
+ void *operator new(size_t size) noexcept;
+ void operator delete(void *ptr, size_t) noexcept; // ok only if sized deallocation is enabled
+};
+
+struct U {
+ void *operator new(size_t size) noexcept;
+ void operator delete(void *ptr) noexcept;
+
+ void *operator new[](size_t) noexcept;
+ void operator delete[](void *) noexcept;
+};
+
+struct Z {
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE+1]]:8: warning: declaration of 'operator delete' has no matching declaration of 'operator new' at the same scope
+ void operator delete(void *ptr) noexcept;
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE+1]]:8: warning: declaration of 'operator delete[]' has no matching declaration of 'operator new[]' at the same scope
+ void operator delete[](void *ptr) noexcept;
+};
+
+struct A {
+ void *operator new(size_t size, Z) noexcept; // ok, placement new
+};
+
+struct B {
+ void operator delete(void *ptr, A) noexcept; // ok, placement delete
+};
+
+// It is okay to have a class with an inaccessible free store operator.
+struct C {
+ void *operator new(size_t, A) noexcept; // ok, placement new
+private:
+ void operator delete(void *) noexcept;
+};
+
+// It is also okay to have a class with a delete free store operator.
+struct D {
+ void *operator new(size_t, A) noexcept; // ok, placement new
+ void operator delete(void *) noexcept = delete;
+};
+
+struct E : U {
+ void *operator new(size_t) noexcept; // okay, we inherit operator delete from U
+};
+
+struct F : S {
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE+1]]:9: warning: declaration of 'operator new' has no matching declaration of 'operator delete' at the same scope
+ void *operator new(size_t) noexcept;
+};
+
+class G {
+ void operator delete(void *) noexcept;
+};
+
+struct H : G {
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE+1]]:9: warning: declaration of 'operator new' has no matching declaration of 'operator delete' at the same scope
+ void *operator new(size_t) noexcept; // base class operator is inaccessible
+};