Fix #14949: FP leakNoVarFunctionCall when passing resource to constructor

[aadanen]

Remove Variable and AllocType type checking when searching for unreleased arguments and when checking if member variables are deallocated in destructor.

This method is a little heavy handed and might hurt performance, but I am unsure how we could be more precise. It would be nice if we could check "If var.isResource() or var.needsToBeDeallocated()" but that would be a different PR i think.

[aadanen]

clang-tidy/build fails with
/home/runner/work/cppcheck/cppcheck/lib/checkmemoryleak.cpp:1049:13: error: do not use 'else' after 'continue' [readability-else-after-return,-warnings-as-errors]
1049 | else {
| ^
which will be easy to fix

sanitizers/build fails with a timeout. As I anticipated this solution is too slow. I will think about how to make it faster.

[chrchr-github]

sanitizers/build fails with a timeout. As I anticipated this solution is too slow. I will think about how to make it faster.

It does that all the time, I'll rerun it later...

[ludviggunne]

I'm not so sure typeTok is meaningful if it's not preceded by new. I believe in the test cases it's just a (. If we want to bail out here I think it's enough to determine that it's passed to a constructor.

[aadanen]

I don't understand. Using git blame I traced those lines back to 23deadb370 and 54b9fa5523. It seems to me like they are there for a reason. Maybe they are unnecessary, but I feel that should be a separate PR.

Edit: nevermind sorry I see the issue. I will see about reducing these checks.

[aadanen]

I tried removing different subsets of the checks and something like

if (tok->function() && !tok->function()->isConstructor())
                continue;

based on your suggestion about checking if it's passed to a constructor but wasn't able to pass all test cases. I've got to do some other work so likely won't be able to solve this today. It might be a bit beyond my limited knowledge as most of my cppcheck hacking has been focused on the front end.

[aadanen]

Hello, I would really like to see this change merged in. I think the main point of this PR has been accomplished but then there was a comment about unnecessary checks I don't have enough knowledge to resolve. Maybe we can leave that for another PR, or I would need a bit of guidance.

Thanks for your help!
Aaron