1 files changed, 31 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/test/Analysis/max-nodes-suppress-on-sink.c b/test/Analysis/max-nodes-suppress-on-sink.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..c45bee8203df
--- /dev/null
+++ b/test/Analysis/max-nodes-suppress-on-sink.c
@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -analyze -analyzer-checker=core,unix.Malloc,debug.ExprInspection -analyzer-config max-nodes=12 -verify %s
+
+// Here we test how "suppress on sink" feature of certain bugtypes interacts
+// with reaching analysis limits.
+
+// If we report a warning of a bug-type with "suppress on sink" attribute set
+// (such as MallocChecker's memory leak warning), then failing to reach the
+// reason for the sink (eg. no-return function such as "exit()") due to analysis
+// limits (eg. max-nodes option), we may produce a false positive.
+
+typedef __typeof(sizeof(int)) size_t;
+void *malloc(size_t);
+
+extern void exit(int) __attribute__ ((__noreturn__));
+
+void clang_analyzer_warnIfReached(void);
+
+void test_single_cfg_block_sink() {
+  void *p = malloc(1); // no-warning (wherever the leak warning may occur here)
+
+  // Due to max-nodes option in the run line, we should reach the first call
+  // but bail out before the second call.
+  // If the test on these two lines starts failing, see if modifying
+  // the max-nodes run-line helps.
+  clang_analyzer_warnIfReached(); // expected-warning{{REACHABLE}}
+  clang_analyzer_warnIfReached(); // no-warning
+
+  // Even though we do not reach this line, we should still suppress
+  // the leak report.
+  exit(0);
+}