C++: Use an IPA type rather than negative indexes for argument/parameter matching in data flow #7541
Conversation
This takes advantage of the new ArgumentPosition and ParameterPosition types in the shared DataFlow library interface to represent indirections with an IPA type rather than the negative-index system in use previously
Only a couple of minor comments. I think we should run a DCA for this as well before we merge it.
cpp/ql/lib/semmle/code/cpp/ir/dataflow/internal/DataFlowPrivate.qll
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ private import semmle.code.cpp.ir.IR | |||
| private import semmle.code.cpp.controlflow.IRGuards | |||
| private import semmle.code.cpp.models.interfaces.DataFlow | |||
| private import DataFlowPrivate | |||
| private import DataFlowDispatch | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do we need to import DataFlowDispatch here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think I added that before moving the ArgumentPosition definitions out of DataFlowDispatch. It's not needed any more.
| /** An argument position represented by an integer. */ | ||
| class ArgumentPosition = Position; | ||
|
|
||
| class Position extends TPosition { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we add an INTERNAL: Do not use QLDoc to this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good point, but I think I can move it to DataFlowPrivate, actually.
| } | ||
|
|
||
| newtype TPosition = | ||
| TDirectPosition(int index) { exists(any(CallInstruction c).getArgument(index))} or | ||
| TIndirectionPosition(int index) { exists(any(CallInstruction c).getArgument(index)) } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should this branch be restricted to those CallInstructions that have a ReadSideEffectInstruction at index index?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Probably. I'll just check ReadSideEffectInstruction::getIndex(), though.
No description provided.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: