Summary:
bigmacro_bender
There are 3 ways pulse tracks history. This is at least one too many. So
far, we have:
1. "histories": a humble list of "events" like "assigned here", "returned from call", ...
2. "interproc actions": a structured nesting of calls with a final "action", eg "f calls g calls h which does blah"
3. "traces", which combine one history with one interproc action
This diff gets rid of interproc actions and makes histories include
"nested" callee histories too. This allows pulse to track and display
how a value got assigned across function calls.
Traces are now more powerful and interleave histories and interproc
actions. This allows pulse to track how a value is fed into an action,
for instance performed in callee, which itself creates some more
(potentially now interprocedural) history before going to the next step
of the action (either another call or the action itself).
This gives much better traces, and some examples are added to showcase
this.
There are a lot of changes when applying summaries to keep track of
histories more accurately than was done before, but also a few
simplifications that give additional evidence that this is the right
concept.
Reviewed By: skcho
Differential Revision: D17908942
fbshipit-source-id: 3b62eaf78
Summary:
Sometimes the post of a function call has attributes on addresses that
were mentioned in the pre but are no longer reachable in the post. We
don't want to forget these, see added test.
Reviewed By: mbouaziz
Differential Revision: D16050050
fbshipit-source-id: 1ce522b97
Summary:
The previous message formatting had regressed and produced non-sensical messages.
More importantly, remove template parameters from error messages to
trigger the heuristic in `InferPrint` that deduplicates errors that are
on the same line with the same error type and message. Without this we
get hundreds of reports that correspond to as many instantiations of the
same code.
Reviewed By: ngorogiannis
Differential Revision: D14747979
fbshipit-source-id: 3c4aad2b1
Summary:
Some of these tests were wrong, eg `~lambda()` calls `lambda()` then...
takes the bitwise complement or something? The intent was to call the
destructor.
Add interprocedural tests for later.
Reviewed By: jberdine
Differential Revision: D14324762
fbshipit-source-id: 40d2c32f5
Jules Villard
Josh Berdine