daily report on extending static analyzer project [GSoC]

[David Malcolm]

On Tue, 2021-07-06 at 18:46 -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Sat, 2021-07-03 at 20:07 +0530, Ankur Saini wrote:
> > AIM for today : 
> > 
> > - update the call_stack to track something else other than
> > supergraph
> > edges
> > 
> > —
> > 
> > PROGRESS :
> > 
> > - After some brainstorming about tracking the callstack, I think
> > one
> > better way to track the call stack is to keep track of source and
> > destination of the call instead of supperedges representing them. 
> > 
> > - so I branched again and updated the call-string to now capture a
> > pair
> > of supernodes ( one representing callee and other representing
> > caller
> > ), like this I was not only able to easily port the entire code to
> > adapt it without much difficulty, but now can also push calls to
> > functions that doesn’t possess a superedge.
> > 
> > - changes done can be seen on the "
> > refs/users/arsenic/heads/call_string_update “ branch. ( currently
> > this
> > branch doesn’t contain other changes I have done till now, as I
> > wanted
> > to test the new call-string representation exclusively and make
> > sure it
> > doesn’t affect the functionality of the base analyser )
> 
> I'm not an expert at git, so it took me a while to figure out how to
> access your branch.
> 
> It's easier for me if you can also use "git format-patch" to generate
> a
> patch and "git send-email" to send it to this list (and me, please),
> so
> that the patch content is going to the list.
> 
> The approach in the patch seems reasonable.
> 
> I think you may have a memory leak, though: you're changing
> call_string
> from:
>   auto_vec<const return_superedge *> m_return_edges;
> to:
>   auto_vec<const std::pair<const supernode *,const supernode *>*>
> m_supernodes;

One other, unrelated idea that just occurred to me: those lines get
very long, so maybe introduce a typedef e.g. 
  typedef std::pair<const supernode *,const supernode *> element_t;
so that you can refer to the pairs as call_string::element_t, and just
element_t when you're in call_string scope, and just have a:

  auto_vec<element_t> m_supernodes;

or

  auto_vec<element_t> m_elements; 

within the call_string, if that makes sense.  Does that simplify
things?

Dave