Skip to content

C++: Add range analysis testcase #14708

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
MathiasVP merged 1 commit into from
Nov 7, 2023
Merged

C++: Add range analysis testcase #14708

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
10 changes: 10 additions & 0 deletions cpp/ql/test/library-tests/ir/range-analysis/test.cpp
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -130,3 +130,13 @@ void test_div(int x) {
range(x >> 2); // $ range=>=0 range=<=2
}
}

struct X { int n; };
void read_argument(const X *);

void nonterminating_without_operands_as_ssa(X *x) {
read_argument(x);
while (x->n) {
x->n--;
}
}
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@geoffw0 geoffw0 Nov 7, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There are no expected results for the test. It might be nice to either add some and/or explain that we're mostly checking for an analysis non-termination issue here?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@MathiasVP MathiasVP Nov 7, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Indeed the issue here is specifically nontermination. I can add a comment if the function name doesn't make this clear 🙂

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@geoffw0 geoffw0 Nov 7, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, it's a little odd that we're supposed to read the function name as a comment on the implementation, though we're not exactly strict about such things. I'd prefer a comment. I don't have strong feelings.