Skip to content
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

cmd/vet: know what builtin functions have no side effects #22851

mvdan opened this issue Nov 22, 2017 · 3 comments

cmd/vet: know what builtin functions have no side effects #22851

mvdan opened this issue Nov 22, 2017 · 3 comments


Copy link

@mvdan mvdan commented Nov 22, 2017

Reminder issue to continue the work in

For example, len and cap never have any side effects, and it would be useful to know that i == len(x) || i == len(x) is a suspicious expression.

More broadly, this could be extended to automatically detect what functions are free of side effects. But this would require having access to the full source with full type information, and may be complex and costly, so I'm not entirely sure it's a right fit for vet.

A simpler version of the above would be to also add standard library functions, such as strings.Contains or path.Join. I don't know if it is OK for vet to treat standard library packages differently, though.

@mvdan mvdan self-assigned this Nov 22, 2017
Copy link

@gopherbot gopherbot commented Feb 28, 2018

Change mentions this issue: cmd/vet: teach vet that len and cap are pure funcs

@andybons andybons added this to the Unplanned milestone Mar 13, 2018
Copy link

@gopherbot gopherbot commented May 9, 2018

Change mentions this issue: cmd/vet: assume that no builtin funcs are pure

gopherbot pushed a commit that referenced this issue May 9, 2018
That was the intention with the existing code, but it was buggy; builtin
functions aren't treated as values by types.TypeAndVal. Thus, we should
use the IsBuiltin method instead of IsValue.

Teaching vet what builtin funcs are pure is already being tracked as a
separate issue, #22851.

While at it, also add a test with methods, just to be sure that the
current logic doesn't break with that edge case either.

Fixes #25303.

Change-Id: Ic18402b22cceeabf76641c02f575b194b9a536cc
Run-TryBot: Daniel Martí <>
Run-TryBot: Robert Griesemer <>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <>
Reviewed-by: Robert Griesemer <>
@mvdan mvdan removed their assignment Nov 15, 2018
Copy link
Member Author

@mvdan mvdan commented Nov 15, 2018

I've abandoned the CL I had sent for this, since it required more work and it had gotten considerable merge conflicts. Perhaps someone else will pick up this issue in the future.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
3 participants