Files
codeql/cpp/ql/test/library-tests/dataflow/dataflow-tests/BarrierGuard.cpp
Jonas Jensen b4385c6e60 C++: Don't use GVN in AST DataFlow BarrierNode
It turns out that the evaluator will evaluate the GVN stage even when no
predicate from it is needed after optimization of the subsequent stages.
The GVN library is expensive to evaluate, and it'll become even more
expensive when we switch its implementation to IR.

This PR disables the use of GVN in `DataFlow::BarrierNode` for the AST
data-flow library, which should improve performance when evaluating a
single data-flow query on a snapshot with no cache. Precision decreases
slightly, leading to a new FP in the qltests.

There is no corresponding change for the IR data-flow library since IR
GVN is not very expensive.
2020-02-04 08:40:36 +01:00

69 lines
1.2 KiB
C++

int source();
void sink(int);
bool guarded(int);
void bg_basic(int source) {
if (guarded(source)) {
sink(source); // no flow
} else {
sink(source); // flow
}
}
void bg_not(int source) {
if (!guarded(source)) {
sink(source); // flow
} else {
sink(source); // no flow
}
}
void bg_and(int source, bool arbitrary) {
if (guarded(source) && arbitrary) {
sink(source); // no flow
} else {
sink(source); // flow
}
}
void bg_or(int source, bool arbitrary) {
if (guarded(source) || arbitrary) {
sink(source); // flow
} else {
sink(source); // flow
}
}
void bg_return(int source) {
if (!guarded(source)) {
return;
}
sink(source); // no flow
}
struct XY {
int x, y;
};
void bg_stackstruct(XY s1, XY s2) {
s1.x = source();
if (guarded(s1.x)) {
sink(s1.x); // no flow [FALSE POSITIVE in AST]
} else if (guarded(s1.y)) {
sink(s1.x); // flow
} else if (guarded(s2.y)) {
sink(s1.x); // flow
}
}
void bg_structptr(XY *p1, XY *p2) {
p1->x = source();
if (guarded(p1->x)) {
sink(p1->x); // no flow [FALSE POSITIVE in AST]
} else if (guarded(p1->y)) {
sink(p1->x); // flow
} else if (guarded(p2->x)) {
sink(p1->x); // flow
}
}