1526400a81
Previously, the IR for the initialization of a static local variable ran the initialization unconditionally, every time the declaration was reached during execution. This means that we don't model the possibility that an access to the static variable fetches a value that was set on a previous execution of the function. I've added some simple modelling of the correct behavior to the IR. For each static local variable that has a dynamic initializer, we synthesize a (static) `bool` variable to hold whether the initializer for the original variable has executed. When executing a declaration, we check the value of the synthesized variable, and skip the initialization code if it is `true`. If it is `false`, we execute the initialization code as before, and then set the flag to `true`. This doesn't capture the thread-safe nature of static initialization, but I think it's more than enough to handle anything we're likely to care about for the foreseeable future. In `TranslatedDeclarationEntry.qll`, I split the translation of a static local variable declaration into two `TranslatedElement`s: one for the declaration itself, and one for the initialization. The declaration part handles the checking and setting of the flag; the initialization just does the initialization as before. I've added an IR test case that has static variables with constant, zero, and dynamic initialization. I've also verified the new IR generated for @jbj's previous test cases for constant initialization. I inverted the sense of the `hasConstantInitialization()` predicate to be `hasDynamicInitialization()`. Mostly this just made more sense to me, but I think it also fixed a potential bug where `hasConstantInitialization()` would not hold for a zero-initialized variable. Technically, constant initialization isn't the same as zero initialization, but I believe that most code really cares about the distinction between dynamic initialization and static initialization, where static initialization includes both constant and zero initialization. I've fixed up the C# side of IR generation to continue working, but it doesn't use any of the dynamic initialization stuff. In theory, it could use something similar to model the initialization of static fields.
CodeQL
This open source repository contains the standard CodeQL libraries and queries that power LGTM, and the other products that Semmle makes available to its customers worldwide.
How do I learn CodeQL and run queries?
There is extensive documentation on getting started with writing CodeQL. You can use the interactive query console on LGTM.com or the CodeQL for Visual Studio Code extension to try out your queries on any open source project that's currently being analyzed.
Contributing
We welcome contributions to our standard library and standard checks. Do you have an idea for a new check, or how to improve an existing query? Then please go ahead and open a pull request! Before you do, though, please take the time to read our contributing guidelines. You can also consult our style guides to learn how to format your code for consistency and clarity, how to write query metadata, and how to write query help documentation for your query.
License
The code in this repository is licensed under Apache License 2.0 by Semmle.