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:
Let's add basic Java support to impurity checker. Since impurity checker relies on pulse, we need to add Java with Pulse callback as well. Pulse doesn't officially support Java yet, but we can enable it for impurity checker for now.
Many Java primitives/operations are not yet modeled (such as creation of new objects, support for collections etc.). Still, it is good to run impurity checker on the existing tests of the purity checker. Also, it is nice to see that we can identify most of the impure functions correctly in the purity dir. There are a lot of FNs though.
Reviewed By: skcho
Differential Revision: D17906237
fbshipit-source-id: 15308d285
Jules Villard
Ezgi Çiçek