-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.9k
C#: Adopt shared SSA data-flow integration #16936
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
Changes from 1 commit
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -171,8 +171,14 @@ signature predicate guardChecksSig(Guard g, Expr e, AbstractValue v); | |
| * in data flow and taint tracking. | ||
| */ | ||
| module BarrierGuard<guardChecksSig/3 guardChecks> { | ||
| private import SsaImpl as SsaImpl | ||
|
|
||
| /** Gets a node that is safely guarded by the given guard check. */ | ||
| ExprNode getABarrierNode() { | ||
| pragma[nomagic] | ||
| Node getABarrierNode() { | ||
| SsaFlow::asNode(result) = | ||
| SsaImpl::DataFlowIntegration::BarrierGuard<guardChecks/3>::getABarrierNode() | ||
| or | ||
| exists(Guard g, Expr e, AbstractValue v | | ||
| guardChecks(g, e, v) and | ||
| g.controlsNode(result.getControlFlowNode(), e, v) | ||
|
Comment on lines
182
to
184
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Why is this second disjunct not redundant now? Does it cover more than ssa variable reads?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Good question: Yes, it covers more than SSA variable reads (it uses GVN, which--although it is unsound in general--is likely to produce valid guards). |
||
|
|
||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There's a pipeline duplication here, better add
isUseStep = trueto the second disjunct.