Summary:
Turns out the mistake was pretty simple: we just forgot to keep the
history of the return value in the callee and add it to the caller's.
Reviewed By: skcho
Differential Revision: D28385941
fbshipit-source-id: 40fe09c99
Summary:
The order was reversed when printing the trace, leading to confusion.
Also make sure we indicate which part of the trace we are printing when
there is more than one part (either context + access or invalidation +
access, or all three).
Also start nesting at <calling context length> to better represent the
role of the calling context visually.
Reviewed By: da319
Differential Revision: D28329263
fbshipit-source-id: b691fb1f4
Summary:
See added test: pulse sometimes insisted that an issue was latent even
though the condition that made it latent could not be influenced (hence
could the issue could never become manifest) by callers because it was
unrelated to the pre, i.e. it came from a mutation inside the function.
In these cases, we want to report the issue straight away instead of
keeping it latent.
Reviewed By: skcho
Differential Revision: D28002725
fbshipit-source-id: ce9e6f190
Summary:
Having different behaviours inter-procedurally and intra-procedurally
sounds like a bad design in retrospect. The model of free() should not
depend on whether we currently know the value is not null as that means
some specs are missing from the summary.
Reviewed By: skcho
Differential Revision: D26019712
fbshipit-source-id: 1ac4316a5
Summary:
The test compiled with warnings, not sure how to prevent this in the
future as `infer` will suppress all warnings anyway (I wanted to add
`-Werror` to the test Makefile but that was defeated by infer itself).
Reviewed By: ezgicicek
Differential Revision: D26019682
fbshipit-source-id: d7f8fc2d8
Jules Villard
Loc Le