Summary:
This diff tries to support a specific form of linked list iteration in Java.
```
while (p != null) {
p = p.getNext();
}
```
This example was a constant cost before because the cost checker could not detect that it is an iteration on a linked list.
The heuristic this diff implemented is:
(1) `p = p.getNext()`: It tries to find this specific form of assignment. Then, it increments `p.linked_list_index` by 1. Note that `linked_list_index` is a virtual field for keeping an index in the linked list. Its initial value is always 0.
(2) At `p != null`, it tries to prune the value of `p.linked_list_index`: the upper-bound of `p.linked_list_index` is pruned by `<= p.linked_list_length`. Here again, `p.linked_list_length` is also a virtual field to denote the length of the linked list.
Reviewed By: ezgicicek
Differential Revision: D22234892
fbshipit-source-id: 2fee176bb
Summary: We do not use an arbitrary threshold to test cost results anymore but instead rely on `cost-issues` which do not have any trace attached. This diff adds traces to `costs-report.json` so that we can test cost issues with traces.
Reviewed By: skcho
Differential Revision: D21858846
fbshipit-source-id: e73321a92
Summary:
The model returns an array the length of which is the same to that of enum entries.
It takes the length of enum entries from the summary of `Enum.values` because it is not written in `tenv`. In order to do that, the model semantics should be able to request the summary of the function with `get_summary`, so I extended `model_env` to include the functionality.
Reviewed By: ezgicicek
Differential Revision: D21843319
fbshipit-source-id: d6f10eb91
Summary:
The model returns an array the length of which is the number of known
fields in `tenv`.
Reviewed By: ezgicicek
Differential Revision: D21840375
fbshipit-source-id: 891517c6e
Summary:
In order to test cost analysis results, currently we rely on having an arbitrary cost threshold (200) and report issues that exceed this cost. For instance, a cost of 201 is considered expensive and reported as `EXPENSIVE_EXECUTION_TIME` issue in cost tests.
This means, if we change the cost analysis in a slight way that results in some constant cost increase under 200, we wouldn't able to detect it. I find this unsatisfactory and somewhat hacky.
This diff adds the ability to write the result of `costs-report.json` into a separate `cost-issues.exp` and then compare the actual costs (not only than relying on this arbitrary threshold reporting mechanism).
Reviewed By: skcho
Differential Revision: D21816312
fbshipit-source-id: 93b531928
Sungkeun Cho
Ezgi Çiçek