C++: Deduplicate dataflow query results #14151
Open
+314
∄1�7889
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR fixes the problem of duplicated dataflow results we've seen since we switched to IR-based dataflow.
To see why we get such duplicated results, consider the following query:
When running on:
we get two identical results. This is because both the dataflow node for the unconverted
xand the dataflow node for the convertedxmap to thexexpression.This PR fixes this issue by ensuring that only the fully converted expression has a result for
asExpr(). CallingasExpr()on a dataflow node gives the unconverted expression, and callingasConvertedExpr()gives the converted expression.Commit-by-commit strongly encouraged (You can see the effects of each commit in the updated
.expectedfiles):Instruction::getConvertedResultExpression()with this new predicate.asExpr.asExprinstead ofasConvertedExpr, and removes manual deduplication. These workarounds are no longer needed.DCA shows significant result deduplication 🎉. There are a couple of reported lost results, but the only ones that are genuinely lost are the two
cpp/very-likely-overrunning-writeonvim. This is a bit unfortunate, but I can't see a good way of bringing them back with the current semantics ofunique.I'll create a follow-up issue for this last part. I don't think it should block the PR, though.