This stops some cases of `-0.0` from propagating through the range
analysis, fixing a false positive on arvidn/libtorrent.
There seems to be no need for a corresponding change in the caller of
`getDefLowerBoundsImpl` since that predicate only contains computations
that cannot introduce negative zero.
We avoid putting a variable into SSA if its address is ever taken in a way that could allow mutation of the variable via indirection. We currently just look to see if the address is either "pointer to non-const" or "reference to non-const". However, if the address was cast to an integral type (e.g. `uintptr_t n = (uintptr_t)&x;`), we were treating it as unescaped. This change makes the conservative assumption that casting a pointer to an integer may result in the pointed-to value being modified later.
This fixes a customer-reported false positive (#2 from https://discuss.lgtm.com/t/2-false-positives-in-c-for-comparison-is-always-same/1943)
Reported by an LGTM customer here: https://discuss.lgtm.com/t/2-false-positives-in-c-for-comparison-is-always-same/1943.
Even though the comparison is pointless in the preprocessor configuration in effect during extraction, it is not pointless in other preprocessor configurations. Similar to ExprHasNoEffect, we'll now exclude results in functions that contain preprocessor-excluded code. I factored the similar code already used in ExprHasNoEffect in a non-recursive version into Preprocessor.qll, leaving the recursive version in ExprHasNoEffect.ql. I believe the recursive version is too aggressive for PointerlessComparison, which does no interprocedural analysis.
It still runs on uninstantiated templates because its underlying
libraries do. It's not clear whether that leads to other false
positives, but that's independent of the change I'm making here.
