C++: Handle switch statements in the guards library
#15941
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…r switch statements as well.
![github-advanced-security[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/57789?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
jketema
reviewed
Mar 18, 2024
What about the Kamalio jolin order badness? |
Sadly, that's a bug in the join order badness that we haven't been able to understand :( This one constantly shows up in DCA runs, and I haven't been able to figure out what's going on. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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 introduces the minimal changes necessary to support
switchstatements in the guards library. After this PR, it's now possible to ask if a block is controlled by a particularcasein a switch statement.It's still possible to do more in this area. For example,
GuardCondition.comparesEqstill doesn't reason aboutswitchstatements since the interface on that predicate can't really support it (its columns include(Expr left, Expr right, int k)which holds ifleft == right + k, but thecaselabel in a switch isn't an expression). So such changes are probably best done in a follow-up PR.Commit-by-commit review recommended.
DCA looks good. The removed results are clear FPs that now disappear. And the new results is because the medium precision query now shows these results since they're no longer results in the high precision query (😭).