C++: Fix some FPs in cpp/missing-check-scanf (second attempt)
#17938
+742
−124
Conversation
This file contains 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
![github-advanced-security[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/57789?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
MathiasVP
force-pushed
the
fix-fp-in-missing-check-scanf-fixing-take-2
branch
2 times, most recently
from
e0f0b0a
to
930efc2
Compare
|
|
MathiasVP
force-pushed
the
fix-fp-in-missing-check-scanf-fixing-take-2
branch
4 times, most recently
from
d01d8f1
to
7a802d5
Compare
MathiasVP
force-pushed
the
fix-fp-in-missing-check-scanf-fixing-take-2
branch
from
7a802d5
to
ac2630c
Compare
MathiasVP
force-pushed
the
fix-fp-in-missing-check-scanf-fixing-take-2
branch
from
ac2630c
to
bb85aa2
Compare
jketema
changed the title
cpp/missing-check-scanf (second attempt)
jketema
reviewed
Nov 14, 2024
Comment on lines
+84
to
+106
| private class CompareEQValueNumber extends CompareValueNumber { | ||
| override CompareEQInstruction cmp; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| private class CompareNEValueNumber extends CompareValueNumber { | ||
| override CompareNEInstruction cmp; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| private class CompareLTValueNumber extends CompareValueNumber { | ||
| override CompareLTInstruction cmp; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| private class CompareGTValueNumber extends CompareValueNumber { | ||
| override CompareGTInstruction cmp; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| private class CompareLEValueNumber extends CompareValueNumber { | ||
| override CompareLEInstruction cmp; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| private class CompareGEValueNumber extends CompareValueNumber { | ||
| override CompareGEInstruction cmp; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are these all possible cases?
| * A value number such that at least one of the instructions is an | ||
| * insruction that is used in a `SwitchInstruction`'s expression. | ||
| */ | ||
| private class ScrutineeValueNumber extends ValueNumber { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe ControllingValueNumber?
Comment on lines
-1084
to
+1167
| CompareInstruction cmp, Operand left, Operand right, int k, boolean isLt, AbstractValue value | ||
| ValueNumber cmp, Operand left, Operand right, int k, boolean isLt, AbstractValue value |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why not CompareValueNumber?
Comment on lines
-1102
to
+1185
| CompareInstruction cmp, Operand left, Operand right, int k, boolean isLt, AbstractValue value | ||
| ValueNumber cmp, Operand left, Operand right, int k, boolean isLt, AbstractValue value |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why not CompareValueNumber?
Comment on lines
-1152
to
+1235
| CompareInstruction cmp, Operand left, Operand right, int k, boolean isLt, AbstractValue value | ||
| ValueNumber cmp, Operand left, Operand right, int k, boolean isLt, AbstractValue value |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why not CompareValueNumber?
Comment on lines
-1220
to
+1303
| CompareInstruction cmp, Operand left, Operand right, int k, boolean areEqual, AbstractValue value | ||
| ValueNumber cmp, Operand left, Operand right, int k, boolean areEqual, AbstractValue value |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why not CompareValueNumber?
Comment on lines
-1275
to
+1358
| CompareInstruction cmp, Operand left, Operand right, int k, boolean areEqual, AbstractValue value | ||
| ValueNumber cmp, Operand left, Operand right, int k, boolean areEqual, AbstractValue value |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why not CompareValueNumber?
Co-authored-by: Jeroen Ketema <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Jeroen Ketema <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Jeroen Ketema <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
#16009 gave good results, but was unfortunately closed due to performance problems in DCA. Initially, I had concluded that GVN was causing
ensuresEq(test, e, ..., block, ...)to hold for too many (e, block) pairs and thus causing a slowdown.After working through some performance problems in Ben's alternative PR #17907 I realized that the performance problem was actually coming from an existing problem in the
unary_simple_comparison_eqpredicate: currently, onmain, there is a very large QLDoc and some very ad-hoc conjunctions in the second disjunct ofunary_simple_comparison_eqto reduce the size of the predicate. However, it turns out that this is too doing a very good job.Instead, the second commit is restricting the predicate properly by pruning the set down to only those tests that are used in unary comparisons that we actually care about.
Commits a40c1d5 and db38069 are taken from #16009 which @jketema has already looked at (although I don't blame you for wanting to re-review it if you want to. Let me know if you want me to split up the complex commit again like in #16009). The only new thing is the pruning in 442968c
The commits that were tested at the latest DCA is consistent with the HEAD of this branch. I just force-pushed to clean up tests remove some spurious imports I had when experimenting with stuff.