Skip to content

Conversation

@miltolstoy
Copy link
Contributor

Before this PR, any global variable found in function body marked this function as side-effect one. Analyzing global variables more precisely from now.
Any help with missed test cases will be highly appreciated.

@amai2012 amai2012 requested a review from danmar December 14, 2020 09:12
@danmar
Copy link
Owner

danmar commented Dec 14, 2020

Thanks! I will look this evening..

Copy link
Owner

@danmar danmar left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

small nits.. I will test it out a bit..

Copy link
Owner

@danmar danmar left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

hmm I have tried it out and it works better than I thought!

// check if pointer to global variable assigned to another variable (another_var = &global_var)
if (Token::simpleMatch(bodyToken->tokAt(-1), "&") && Token::simpleMatch(bodyToken->tokAt(-2), "=")) {
const Token* assigned_var_token = bodyToken->tokAt(-3);
if (assigned_var_token && assigned_var_token->variable())
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

if this condition is true then you don't care that the address is used somehow.. would probably be safer to return false then.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@miltolstoy miltolstoy Dec 15, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

As I see, isVariableChanged() works fine enough with "pointer-to-global" variables. I prefer to leave it as is, if you not insist.
Do you see any test cases which will force this code work not as expected?

Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think it works well.. right now I am only worried about the todo test case. Do you know it it's complex to fix that?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Probably, it should be not so complex. But it can affect existing tests and I will need some time to figure out with them.
Also I can not estimate a free time amount I will be able to put on this work in the nearest time. =)
How about this one - I will return false for now and update astutils.cpp and this piece of code in next PR?

Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It's fine to make a partial fix.. and finish later. but then I feel more comfortable if there are no false positives in the meantime. So well.. could you return false if there is a global array/pointer variable.

}
// check if global variable is changed
if (bodyVariable->isGlobal() ||
(std::find(pointersToGlobals.begin(), pointersToGlobals.end(), bodyVariable) != pointersToGlobals.end()))
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Now we can use pointersToGlobals.find(bodyVariable) != pointersToGlobals.end() instead here.

@miltolstoy miltolstoy requested a review from danmar December 19, 2020 05:24
@danmar danmar merged commit 6366a57 into danmar:main Dec 19, 2020
@danmar
Copy link
Owner

danmar commented Dec 19, 2020

Thanks!

@miltolstoy
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks!

Welcome.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants