xazax.hun added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/ExprEngineCallAndReturn.cpp:446
+ }
+ const bool BState = State->contains<CTUDispatchBifurcationSet>(D);
+ if (!BState) { // This is the first time we see this foreign function.
----------------
martong wrote:
> xazax.hun wrote:
> > xazax.hun wrote:
> > > martong wrote:
> > > > xazax.hun wrote:
> > > > > So if we see the same foreign function called in multiple contexts,
> > > > > we will only queue one of the contexts for the CTU. Is this the
> > > > > intended design?
> > > > >
> > > > > So if I see:
> > > > > ```
> > > > > foreign(true);
> > > > > foreign(false);
> > > > > ```
> > > > >
> > > > > The new CTU will only evaluate `foreign(true)` but not
> > > > > `foreign(false)`.
> > > > This is intentional.
> > > > ```
> > > > foreign(true);
> > > > foreign(false);
> > > > ```
> > > > The new CTU will evaluate the following paths in the exploded graph:
> > > > ```
> > > > foreign(true); // conservative evaluated
> > > > foreign(false); // conservative evaluated
> > > > foreign(true); // inlined
> > > > foreign(false); // inlined
> > > > ```
> > > > The point is to keep bifurcation to a minimum and avoid the exponential
> > > > blow up.
> > > > So, we will never have a path like this:
> > > > ```
> > > > foreign(true); // conservative evaluated
> > > > foreign(false); // inlined
> > > > ```
> > > >
> > > > Actually, this is the same strategy that we use during the dynamic
> > > > dispatch of C++ virtual calls. See `DynamicDispatchBifurcationMap`.
> > > >
> > > > The conservative evaluation happens in the first phase, the inlining in
> > > > the second phase (assuming the phase1 inlining option is set to none).
> > > > The new CTU will evaluate the following paths in the exploded graph:
> > > > ```
> > > > foreign(true); // conservative evaluated
> > > > foreign(false); // conservative evaluated
> > > > foreign(true); // inlined
> > > > foreign(false); // inlined
> > > > ```
> > >
> > > When we encounter `foreign(true)`, we would add the decl to
> > > `CTUDispatchBifurcationSet`. So the second time we see a call to the
> > > function `foreign(false);`, we will just do the conservative evaluation
> > > and will not add the call to the CTU worklist. So how will
> > > `foreign(false);` be inlined in the second pass? Do I miss something?
> > >
> > Oh, I think I now understand. Do you expect `foreign(false);` to be inlined
> > after we return from `foreign(true);` in the second pass? Sorry for the
> > confusion, in that case it looks good to me.
> > Oh, I think I now understand. Do you expect `foreign(false);` to be inlined
> > after we return from `foreign(true);` in the second pass?
>
> Yes, that's right.
Actually, in this case I wonder whether we really need a set of declarations.
Wouldn't a boolean be sufficient for each path?
So in case of:
```
foreign1(true);
foreign2(false);
```
Why would we want to add `foreign2` to the CTU worklist? More specifically, why
is it important whether a foreign call is actually the same declaration that we
saw earlier on the path? Isn't being foreign the only important information in
this case?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D123773/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D123773
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
