These predicates currently take a pair of `IRBlock`s - as it stands, at
most one edge can exist from one `IRBlock` to a given other `IRBlock`.
We may need to revisit that assumption and create an `IREdge` IPA type
at some future date
There are a few IR APIs that we've found to be confusingly named. This PR renames them to be more consistent within the IR and with the AST API:
`Instruction.getFunction` -> `Instruction.getEnclosingFunction`: This was especially confusing when you'd call `FunctionAddressInstruction.getFunction` to get the function whose address was taken, and wound up with the enclosing function instead.
`Instruction.getXXXOperand` -> `Instruction.getXXX`. Now that `Operand` is an exposed type, we want a way to get a specific `Operand` of an `Instruction`, but more often we want to get the definition instruction of that operand. Now, the pattern is that `getXXXOperand` returns the `Operand`, and `getXXX` is equivalent to `getXXXOperand().getDefinitionInstruction()`.
`Operand.getInstruction` -> `Operand.getUseInstruction`: More consistent with the existing `Operand.getDefinitionInstruction` predicate.
These queries have no results on our test cases in the repo, but
`ambiguousSuccessors` has results on any large C++ code base, and
`unexplainedLoop` has results on Windows builds of ChakraCore.
I looked through a few hundred results from this query on lgtm.com and
found that most of the FPs had to do with comment lines ending in `}`.
This change should fix most of them, at the cost of very few false
negatives.
On Wireshark, this query goes from 7,425 results to 6,686 results before
filtering for generated code. Almost all the lost results were FP,
except a handful of results involving initializer lists.
With this change, the `IRDataflowTestCommon.qll` and
`DataflowTestCommon.qll` files use the same definitions of sources and
sinks. Since the IR data flow library is meant to be compatible with the
AST data flow library, this is what we ought to be testing.
Two alerts change but not necessarily for the right reasons.
As we prepare to clarify how conversions are treated, we don't want a
`sink(...)` declaration where it's non-obvious which conversions are
applied to arguments.
