Check for memory leaks on exit and abort

[peterschrammel]

This has become relevant in the SV-COMP MemCleanup category.

• Each commit message has a non-empty body, explaining why the change was made.
• Methods or procedures I have added are documented, following the guidelines provided in CODING_STANDARD.md.
• The feature or user visible behaviour I have added or modified has been documented in the User Guide in doc/cprover-manual/
• Regression or unit tests are included, or existing tests cover the modified code (in this case I have detailed which ones those are in the commit message).
• My commit message includes data points confirming performance improvements (if claimed).
• My PR is restricted to a single feature or bugfix.
• White-space or formatting changes outside the feature-related changed lines are in commits of their own.

[tautschnig]

Looks good as far as I can tell, but is failing CI.

[kroening]

There's SV-COMP and there's the real world. In the real-world, memory leaks at exit() don't matter, and most engineers won't fix.
If we need exit() memory leaks, I would have a separate categories for these.

[peterschrammel]

We could do a classification similar to Valgrind: http://valgrind.org/docs/manual/faq.html#faq.deflost
E.g. distinguishing 'definitely lost' and 'still reachable' would make sense.

[allredj]

✔️
Passed Diffblue compatibility checks (cbmc commit: 507d221).
Build URL: https://travis-ci.com/diffblue/test-gen/builds/92469216

[NlightNFotis]

Hi @peterschrammel, how should we proceed with this? It looks valuable but looks like it's going to need some work.

[peterschrammel]

This is part of the SV-COMP patchset and needs more work before it can go into develop. Please keep it open.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Base: 78.34% // Head: 78.35% // Increases project coverage by +0.00% 🎉

Coverage data is based on head (1ac66e7) compared to base (a53fa0f).
Patch coverage: 94.06% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

❗ Current head 1ac66e7 differs from pull request most recent head b4b815f. Consider uploading reports for the commit b4b815f to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           develop    #3462   +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage    78.34%   78.35%           
========================================
  Files         1644     1645    +1     
  Lines       190313   190372   +59     
========================================
+ Hits        149097   149159   +62     
+ Misses       41216    41213    -3     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
jbmc/src/janalyzer/janalyzer_parse_options.cpp	48.58% <ø> (ø)
.../src/java_bytecode/character_refine_preprocess.cpp	54.27% <ø> (ø)
...mc/src/java_bytecode/character_refine_preprocess.h	100.00% <ø> (ø)
jbmc/src/java_bytecode/ci_lazy_methods.h	100.00% <ø> (ø)
jbmc/src/java_bytecode/ci_lazy_methods_needed.cpp	98.41% <ø> (ø)
jbmc/src/java_bytecode/ci_lazy_methods_needed.h	100.00% <ø> (ø)
jbmc/src/java_bytecode/code_with_references.cpp	84.61% <ø> (ø)
jbmc/src/java_bytecode/java_bmc_util.cpp	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...mc/src/java_bytecode/java_bytecode_convert_class.h	0.00% <ø> (ø)
...src/java_bytecode/java_bytecode_convert_method.cpp	97.69% <ø> (ø)
... and 411 more

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.