-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.8k
C++: Remove noise from argHasPostUpdate check #3162
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
230 changes: 0 additions & 230 deletions
230
cpp/ql/test/library-tests/dataflow/dataflow-tests/dataflow-consistency.expected
Large diffs are not rendered by default.
Oops, something went wrong.
322 changes: 2 additions & 320 deletions
322
cpp/ql/test/library-tests/dataflow/dataflow-tests/dataflow-ir-consistency.expected
Large diffs are not rendered by default.
Oops, something went wrong.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd recommend against this line. Presumably a
Call
can be a getter, in which case you'd want a postupdatenode to allow a backwards store step. E.g. inyou'd want flow to reach
objWithFooField
with an access path of[.foo]
.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good point. But if these are consistency queries, then I'd expect their results to show me nodes that are unexpectedly missing. A node for
objWithFooField
is missing because the AST data flow isn't feature-complete, but that doesn't mean it's inconsistent.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It is the call to
.getFoo()
that may or may not be missing (we're looking at something that's both a call and an argument), and this line suppresses information about such missing postupdatenodes. If a call in an argument position is missing a postupdatenode and that call has the potential to be a getter, then I think that's definitely an unexpected missing postupdatenode, so I don't think it's a good idea to blanket-filter all calls here.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Note that the feature to get this particular flow step working is implemented completely in the shared library as long as sufficient postupdatenodes are present.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the clarification. I'll try to add the relevant post-update nodes.