Skip to content

Dirty locals copied across threads require program-order constraints #6122

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.

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
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 19, 2022

Conversation

tautschnig
Copy link
Collaborator

We previously lacked SHARED_WRITE events in program order in a newly-spawned
thread for dirty locals being copied from the spawning thread. This resulted in
spurious failures as reading from initial values seemed possible, when the
from-read constraint should have prevented such reads.

Also, replace the variable "t" by the more descriptive "new_thread_nr."

  • Each commit message has a non-empty body, explaining why the change was made.
  • n/a Methods or procedures I have added are documented, following the guidelines provided in CODING_STANDARD.md.
  • n/a The feature or user visible behaviour I have added or modified has been documented in the User Guide in doc/cprover-manual/
  • Regression or unit tests are included, or existing tests cover the modified code (in this case I have detailed which ones those are in the commit message).
  • n/a My commit message includes data points confirming performance improvements (if claimed).
  • My PR is restricted to a single feature or bugfix.
  • n/a White-space or formatting changes outside the feature-related changed lines are in commits of their own.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented May 14, 2021

Codecov Report

Merging #6122 (fa14bb5) into develop (1154f13) will increase coverage by 0.17%.
The diff coverage is 88.81%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #6122      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    76.92%   77.10%   +0.17%     
===========================================
  Files         1583     1582       -1     
  Lines       183314   182642     -672     
===========================================
- Hits        141018   140829     -189     
+ Misses       42296    41813     -483     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
src/cpp/cpp_typecheck_conversions.cpp 85.14% <0.00%> (+0.10%) ⬆️
src/goto-instrument/dump_c.cpp 80.49% <0.00%> (+0.28%) ⬆️
src/goto-instrument/dump_c_class.h 100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/goto-instrument/goto_program2code.cpp 68.84% <0.00%> (+0.06%) ⬆️
src/goto-programs/xml_expr.cpp 51.21% <0.00%> (ø)
src/util/expr_util.h 100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/util/pointer_predicates.cpp 93.10% <ø> (-0.45%) ⬇️
src/util/pointer_predicates.h 66.66% <ø> (ø)
src/analyses/custom_bitvector_analysis.cpp 55.96% <44.44%> (+0.07%) ⬆️
src/solvers/smt2/smt2_conv.cpp 67.57% <66.66%> (-0.04%) ⬇️
... and 33 more

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 352be59...fa14bb5. Read the comment docs.

@tautschnig tautschnig changed the title Dirty locals copied across threads require program-order constraints [depends-on: #6121] Dirty locals copied across threads require program-order constraints Nov 3, 2021
@tautschnig tautschnig marked this pull request as ready for review November 3, 2021 12:40
We previously lacked SHARED_WRITE events in program order in a newly-spawned
thread for dirty locals being copied from the spawning thread. This resulted in
spurious failures as reading from initial values seemed possible, when the
from-read constraint should have prevented such reads.

Also, replace the variable "t" by the more descriptive "new_thread_nr."
@peterschrammel peterschrammel removed their assignment Jul 18, 2022
@tautschnig tautschnig merged commit 6362379 into diffblue:develop Jul 19, 2022
@tautschnig tautschnig deleted the concurrency-dirty-2 branch July 19, 2022 10:11
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants