sgatev added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/Analysis/FlowSensitive/Models/UncheckedOptionalAccessModel.cpp:270 + // needed. + BoolValue &ComparisonValue = MakeValue(Env, *HasValueVal); + auto *ComparisonExprLoc = ---------------- ymandel wrote: > sgatev wrote: > > ymandel wrote: > > > ymandel wrote: > > > > xazax.hun wrote: > > > > > xazax.hun wrote: > > > > > > ymandel wrote: > > > > > > > xazax.hun wrote: > > > > > > > > Is this the right way to initialize `ComparisonValue`? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Considering the expression: `opt.value_or(nullptr) != nullptr` > > > > > > > > * When `has_value == false`, `opt.value_or(nullptr)` will > > > > > > > > return `nullptr`, so `!=` evaluates to false. This case seems > > > > > > > > to check out. > > > > > > > > * However, when `has_value == true`, `opt` might still hold an > > > > > > > > `nullptr` and `!=` could still evaluate to false. > > > > > > > Thanks for digging into this. I think it's correct, but helpful > > > > > > > to step through: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Its correctness depends on `MakeValue`, so I'll focus on that in > > > > > > > particular. For the `nullptr` case, we'll get: > > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > > HasValueVal && ContentsNotEqX > > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > > So, when `has_value == true`, this basically reduces to > > > > > > > `ContentsNotEqX`. Since that's an atom, the result is > > > > > > > indeterminate, which I believe is the desired outcome. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT? Also, even if I've convinced you, please let me know how i > > > > > > > can improve the comments. For that matter, would `MakeValue` be > > > > > > > better with a more specific name, like "MakePredicate" or > > > > > > > somesuch? > > > > > > I think what confuses me is that we do something different for the > > > > > > 3 cases. You convinced me that `HasValueVal && ContentsNotEqX` is > > > > > > correct. But we only do this for one branch out of the 3. What is > > > > > > the reason for that? > > > > > Oh, never mind. Yeah, I think changing `MakeValue` to `MakePredicate` > > > > > would make this a bit clearer. After a second read now I understand > > > > > better what is going on. > > > > Just to be clear: the three cases you mean are lines 273-283, or > > > > something else? > > > and never mind my question, then (I rpelied before I saw your updated). > > > I'll change the name and add comments. > > Can you elaborate on the three cases on lines 273-283? Why not simply do > > > > ``` > > auto &ComparisonExprLoc = Env.createStorageLocation(*ComparisonExpr); > > Env.setStorageLocation(ComparisonExpr, ComparisonExprLoc); > > Env.setValue(ComparisonExprLoc, ComparisonValue); > > ``` > > Can you elaborate on the three cases on lines 273-283? Why not simply do > > > > ``` > > auto &ComparisonExprLoc = Env.createStorageLocation(*ComparisonExpr); > > Env.setStorageLocation(ComparisonExpr, ComparisonExprLoc); > > Env.setValue(ComparisonExprLoc, ComparisonValue); > > ``` > > for the second case: I think we should drop it -- I don't see a reason to > maintain the previous value (if there is any). It might be a good idea for > compositionality, but we're not doing that anywhere else, so it doesn't make > sense here. > > for the first and third case: I assumed that if the expression already has a > location, we'd want to reuse it. But, based on your question, I take it > that's incorrect? > Dropping the second case makes sense to me. For the rest, `createStorageLocation` returns a stable storage location so the snippet above should be sufficient. However, `setStorageLocation` will fail if we try calling it again with the same expression, even if it's called with the same storage location. What do you think about making `setStorageLocation` not fail if it's called with the same arguments? ================ Comment at: clang/lib/Analysis/FlowSensitive/Models/UncheckedOptionalAccessModel.cpp:279 + cast_or_null<BoolValue>(Env.getValue(*ComparisonExprLoc))) { + Env.setValue(*ComparisonExprLoc, + Env.makeAnd(*CurrentValue, ComparisonValue)); ---------------- ymandel wrote: > ymandel wrote: > > xazax.hun wrote: > > > I am still wondering a bit about this case. > > > > > > We generate: `HasValueVal and ContentsNotEqX and CurrentValue`.' > > > I wonder if we want: `HasValueVal and (ContentsNotEqX <=> > > > CurrentValue)` instead? Or even `HasValueVal and CurrentValue`? > > I don't think that the iff version is right, but `HasValueVal and > > CurrentValue` could be. My concern is that we're not guaranteed that > > `CurrentValue` is populated. And, even if we were, it doesn't feel quite > > right. Assuming its a high fidelity model, we get (logically): > > `HasValue(opt) and Ne(ValueOr(opt,X),X)`. Then, when negated (say, on an > > else branch) we get `not(HasValue(opt)) or not(Ne(ValueOr(opt,X),X))` which > > is equivalent to `not(HasValue(opt)) or Eq(ValueOr(opt,X),X)`. While true, > > it seems redundant, since the first clause should be derivable from the > > second (assuming an interpretatable semantics to the `ValueOr` predicate). > > > > Regardless, it might be better to step back and figure out how this should > > be done systematically. I'll try to come back with a proposal on that. > > Regardless, it might be better to step back and figure out how this should > > be done systematically. I'll try to come back with a proposal on that. > > Here's what I have: in general, we're aiming for all models to be a sound > (over) approximation of reality. That is what we're doing here as well. Yet, > that poses a problem for the interpretation of the boolean not operator. If > its operand is an overapproximation, then I believe the naive approach gives > you an under approximation. That's the problem we're hitting when reasoning > about the negation. > > I'm not sure how to handle this. Stanislav -- have we dealt with this issue > before? > > That said, if we go back to the previous approach, of adding the information > to the path condition, I think we avoid this problem, since the path > conditions don't get negated. To Gabor's earlier point: > > There is an implication in the reverse direction as well. In case we know > > the optional is empty, we can prune one of the branches from the analysis. > > Is it possible to implement that with the current status of the framework? > I think is covered by the condition we're adding. Namely: > ``` > ExprValue => has_value > ``` > where `ExprValue` is the truth value of the boolean expression. > > So, the implication in the reverse direction is: > ``` > !has_value => !ExprValue > ``` > that is, if we know the optional doesn't hold a value, then we know that > `opt.value_or(X) = X` > > But, that implication is the contrapositive of our own, so I think it's > already implicitly covered by adding the single implication. Does that sound > right? I'm not following where `Env.makeAnd(*CurrentValue, ComparisonValue)` comes from so I'd question whether it's sound or not. I would have expected to see something like `ExprValue => has_value` (which I believe was the case in the first iteration) and I see no issues with the contrapositive. If you have `x => y` and `not y` in the flow condition, you'll be able to infer that `not x` is true (assuming no other statements for `x`). How we use this to prune branches from the analysis is a question of its own. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D122231/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D122231 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits