Summary:
This resolves a few instances of false negatives; typically:
```
if (x == y) {
// HERE
*x = 10;
*y = 44;
// THERE
}
```
We used to get
```
HERE: &x->v * &y ->v' * v == v'
THERE: &x->v * &y ->v' * v == v' * v |-> 10 * v' |-> 44
```
The state at THERE was thus inconsistent and detected as such (v` and
`v'` are allocated separately in the heap hence cannot be equal).
Now we normalize the state more eagerly and so we get:
```
HERE: &x->v * &y->v
THERE: &x->v * &y->v * v |-> 44
```
Reviewed By: skcho
Differential Revision: D26488377
fbshipit-source-id: 568e685f0
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:
`delete` works exactly like `free` so merge both models together. Also
move the `free(0)` test to nullptr.cpp as it seems more appropriate.
Reviewed By: da319
Differential Revision: D23241297
fbshipit-source-id: 20a32ac54
Summary:
It's a well-known fact that pulse should know too. To avoid splitting
the abstract state systematically, only act if we know the pointer is
exactly 0 to avoid reporting a nullptr dereference on `free(x)`.
Reviewed By: ezgicicek
Differential Revision: D18708575
fbshipit-source-id: 1cc3f6908
Summary:
Similarly to function parameters (and the return value), we need to
apply the pre/post of a function call to the globals mentioned in its
summary.
- tigthen summaries further to remember only abducible variables in the
post (as well as in the pre)
- take globals into account when applying pre/post pairs
Reviewed By: jberdine
Differential Revision: D14780800
fbshipit-source-id: fc0d180bb
Jules Villard
Josh Berdine