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

Handle array_{copy,replace,set} in dependence graph #6710

Merged

Conversation

tautschnig
Copy link
Collaborator

goto_rw previously only handled the "printf" case of an "OTHER"
statement, and failed to account for the array operations. Reaching
definitions didn't handle the "OTHER" case at all before.

  • Each commit message has a non-empty body, explaining why the change was made.
  • Methods or procedures I have added are documented, following the guidelines provided in CODING_STANDARD.md.
  • n/a The feature or user visible behaviour I have added or modified has been documented in the User Guide in doc/cprover-manual/
  • Regression or unit tests are included, or existing tests cover the modified code (in this case I have detailed which ones those are in the commit message).
  • n/a My commit message includes data points confirming performance improvements (if claimed).
  • My PR is restricted to a single feature or bugfix.
  • n/a White-space or formatting changes outside the feature-related changed lines are in commits of their own.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 7, 2022

Codecov Report

Merging #6710 (cb556a3) into develop (ee16d80) will increase coverage by 0.36%.
The diff coverage is 69.44%.

❗ Current head cb556a3 differs from pull request most recent head 5e83d5b. Consider uploading reports for the commit 5e83d5b to get more accurate results

Impacted file tree graph

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #6710      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    76.80%   77.16%   +0.36%     
===========================================
  Files         1589     1582       -7     
  Lines       183658   182663     -995     
===========================================
- Hits        141056   140954     -102     
+ Misses       42602    41709     -893     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
src/analyses/goto_rw.cpp 62.35% <62.06%> (+6.45%) ⬆️
src/analyses/goto_rw.h 68.42% <100.00%> (+3.03%) ⬆️
src/analyses/reaching_definitions.cpp 77.66% <100.00%> (+0.14%) ⬆️
src/goto-programs/set_properties.cpp 83.78% <0.00%> (-11.61%) ⬇️
src/util/signal_catcher.cpp 84.61% <0.00%> (-11.54%) ⬇️
src/util/bitvector_expr.h 95.25% <0.00%> (-0.60%) ⬇️
src/util/simplify_expr_int.cpp 85.07% <0.00%> (-0.43%) ⬇️
...oto-instrument/contracts/instrument_spec_assigns.h 94.52% <0.00%> (-0.22%) ⬇️
src/goto-symex/goto_symex.cpp 98.44% <0.00%> (-0.20%) ⬇️
src/goto-instrument/unwindset.cpp 85.00% <0.00%> (-0.15%) ⬇️
... and 25 more

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update f34b180...5e83d5b. Read the comment docs.

{
object_descriptor_exprt ode;
ode.build(dereference_exprt{skip_typecast(pointer)}, ns);
get_objects_rec(mode, ode.root_object(), -1, -1);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

🪄 magic numbers?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fair point! These are used throughout goto_rw, so I'll post a follow-up PR that fix this throughout this piece of code.

goto_rw previously only handled the "printf" case of an "OTHER"
statement, and failed to account for the array operations. Reaching
definitions didn't handle the "OTHER" case at all before.
@tautschnig tautschnig force-pushed the bugfixes/array-ops-dependence-graph branch from cb556a3 to 5e83d5b Compare March 9, 2022 16:14
@tautschnig tautschnig merged commit 633790b into diffblue:develop Mar 9, 2022
@tautschnig tautschnig deleted the bugfixes/array-ops-dependence-graph branch March 9, 2022 17:30
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants