--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/clang/test/Analysis/blocks.mm	Thu Feb 13 15:10:13 2020 +0900
@@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
+// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -triple x86_64-apple-darwin10 -analyzer-checker=core -fblocks -analyzer-opt-analyze-nested-blocks -verify -x objective-c++ %s
+// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -std=c++11 -analyzer-checker=core,debug.DumpCFG -fblocks -analyzer-opt-analyze-nested-blocks -analyzer-config cfg-rich-constructors=false %s > %t 2>&1
+// RUN: FileCheck --input-file=%t -check-prefixes=CHECK,WARNINGS %s
+// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -std=c++11 -analyzer-checker=core,debug.DumpCFG -fblocks -analyzer-opt-analyze-nested-blocks -analyzer-config cfg-rich-constructors=true %s > %t 2>&1
+// RUN: FileCheck --input-file=%t -check-prefixes=CHECK,ANALYZER %s
+
+// This file tests how we construct two different flavors of the Clang CFG -
+// the CFG used by the Sema analysis-based warnings and the CFG used by the
+// static analyzer. The difference in the behavior is checked via FileCheck
+// prefixes (WARNINGS and ANALYZER respectively). When introducing new analyzer
+// flags, no new run lines should be added - just these flags would go to the
+// respective line depending on where is it turned on and where is it turned
+// off. Feel free to add tests that test only one of the CFG flavors if you're
+// not sure how the other flavor is supposed to work in your case.
+
+// expected-no-diagnostics
+
+void testBlockWithoutCopyExpression(int i) {
+  // Captures i, with no copy expression.
+  (void)(^void() {
+    (void)i;
+  });
+}
+
+// CHECK-LABEL:void testBlockWithoutCopyExpression(int i)
+// CHECK-NEXT: [B2 (ENTRY)]
+// CHECK-NEXT:   Succs (1): B1
+
+// CHECK: [B1]
+// CHECK-NEXT:   1: ^{ }
+// CHECK-NEXT:   2: (void)([B1.1]) (CStyleCastExpr, ToVoid, void)
+// CHECK-NEXT:   Preds (1): B2
+// CHECK-NEXT:   Succs (1): B0
+
+// CHECK: [B0 (EXIT)]
+// CHECK-NEXT:   Preds (1): B1
+
+struct StructWithCopyConstructor {
+  StructWithCopyConstructor(int i);
+  StructWithCopyConstructor(const StructWithCopyConstructor &s);
+};
+void testBlockWithCopyExpression(StructWithCopyConstructor s) {
+  // Captures s, with a copy expression calling the copy constructor for StructWithCopyConstructor.
+  (void)(^void() {
+    (void)s;
+  });
+}
+
+// CHECK-LABEL:void testBlockWithCopyExpression(StructWithCopyConstructor s)
+// CHECK-NEXT: [B2 (ENTRY)]
+// CHECK-NEXT:   Succs (1): B1
+
+// CHECK: [B1]
+// CHECK-NEXT:   1: s
+// CHECK-NEXT:   2: [B1.1] (ImplicitCastExpr, NoOp, const struct StructWithCopyConstructor)
+// CHECK-NEXT:   3: [B1.2] (CXXConstructExpr, const struct StructWithCopyConstructor)
+// CHECK-NEXT:   4: ^{ }
+// CHECK-NEXT:   5: (void)([B1.4]) (CStyleCastExpr, ToVoid, void)
+// CHECK-NEXT:   Preds (1): B2
+// CHECK-NEXT:   Succs (1): B0
+
+// CHECK: [B0 (EXIT)]
+// CHECK-NEXT:   Preds (1): B1
+
+void testBlockWithCaptureByReference() {
+  __block StructWithCopyConstructor s(5);
+  // Captures s by reference, so no copy expression.
+  (void)(^void() {
+    (void)s;
+  });
+}
+
+// CHECK-LABEL:void testBlockWithCaptureByReference()
+// CHECK-NEXT: [B2 (ENTRY)]
+// CHECK-NEXT:   Succs (1): B1
+
+// CHECK: [B1]
+// CHECK-NEXT:   1: 5
+// WARNINGS-NEXT:   2: [B1.1] (CXXConstructExpr, struct StructWithCopyConstructor)
+// ANALYZER-NEXT:   2: [B1.1] (CXXConstructExpr, [B1.3], struct StructWithCopyConstructor)
+// CHECK-NEXT:   3: StructWithCopyConstructor s(5) __attribute__((blocks("byref")));
+// CHECK-NEXT:   4: ^{ }
+// CHECK-NEXT:   5: (void)([B1.4]) (CStyleCastExpr, ToVoid, void)
+// CHECK-NEXT:   Preds (1): B2
+// CHECK-NEXT:   Succs (1): B0
+
+// CHECK: [B0 (EXIT)]
+// CHECK-NEXT:   Preds (1): B1