Summary: If we have no pulse summary (most likely caused by pulse finding a legit issue with the code), let's consider the function as impure.
Reviewed By: jvillard
Differential Revision: D17906016
fbshipit-source-id: 671d3e0ba
Summary:
Unfortunately it is very hard to predict when
`Typ.Procname.describe` will add `()` after the function name, so we
cannot make sure it is always there.
Right now we report clowny stuff like "error while calling `foo()()`",
which this change fixes.
Reviewed By: ezgicicek
Differential Revision: D17665470
fbshipit-source-id: ef290d9c0
Summary:
Introduce a new experimental checker (`--impurity`) that detects
impurity information, tracking which parameters and global variables
of a function are modified. The checker relies on Pulse to detect how
the state changes: it traverses the pre and post pairs starting from
the parameter/global variable and finds where the pre and post heaps
diverge. At diversion points, we expect to see WrittenTo/Invalid attributes
containing a trace of how the address was modified. We use these to
construct the trace of impurity.
This checker is a complement to the purity checker that exists mainly
for Java (and used for cost and loop-hoisting analyses). The aim of
this new experimental checker is to rely on Pulse's precise
memory treatment and come up with a more precise im(purity)
analysis. To distinguish the two checkers, we introduce a new issue
type `IMPURE_FUNCTION` that reports when a function is impure, rather
than when it is pure (as in the purity checker).
TODO:
- improve the analysis to rely on impurity information of external
library calls. Currently, all library calls are assumed to be nops,
hence pure.
- de-entangle Pulse reporting from analysis.
Reviewed By: skcho
Differential Revision: D17051567
fbshipit-source-id: 5e10afb4f
Ezgi Çiçek
Jules Villard