Fix vararg list pointer overlaps (Closes #30) - #41
Open
aikoschurmann wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
aikoschurmann wants to merge 1 commit into
aikoschurmann wants to merge 1 commit into
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Fixes #30.
Vararg lists were using the same pointer addresses as the normal arguments they were built from. This caused them to overlap in the store and leak precision.
To fix this, I added a new
VarArgPtrAddrso vararg lists get their own separate address space. TheallocateListandallocateConsfunctions now take anisVarArgflag to make sure varargs are kept completely distinct from regular arguments. I also added a test suite to verify the precision holds up across the different analysis engines.(Also included a fix for a failing lattice test where unary operations like
sqrtwere losing their intrinsic addresses in the test assertions).Note on Tests:
You might notice some failures in the CI pipeline for the concurrent/incremental suites (specifically
Incremental ModF CP,Incremental ModConc, andParallel (n=8)). I've verified locally that these are pre-existing flaky tests that also consistently fail on the unmodifiedmasterbranch. The dedicated vararg tests pass across all engines