Skip to content

Dependence graph: entry points may have additional control dependencies #6721

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 2 commits into from
Mar 11, 2022

Conversation

tautschnig
Copy link
Collaborator

The first instruction of a function can reasonably have control
dependencies other than that of the function call. Pointer18 is such an
example, because there is a back edge to the beginning of the main
function.

  • 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 Mar 11, 2022

Codecov Report

Merging #6721 (eb84153) into develop (0e1cab5) will increase coverage by 0.02%.
The diff coverage is 84.83%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #6721      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    76.81%   76.84%   +0.02%     
===========================================
  Files         1589     1589              
  Lines       183709   183795      +86     
===========================================
+ Hits        141125   141238     +113     
+ Misses       42584    42557      -27     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
jbmc/src/janalyzer/janalyzer_parse_options.cpp 48.74% <ø> (ø)
jbmc/src/jbmc/jbmc_parse_options.cpp 75.97% <ø> (ø)
jbmc/src/jdiff/jdiff_parse_options.cpp 67.34% <ø> (ø)
src/goto-diff/goto_diff_parse_options.h 100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/goto-instrument/contracts/contracts.h 100.00% <ø> (ø)
.../goto-instrument/goto_instrument_parse_options.cpp 69.39% <ø> (ø)
...rc/goto-instrument/goto_instrument_parse_options.h 100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/goto-programs/goto_check.cpp 81.39% <ø> (ø)
src/goto-programs/process_goto_program.cpp 100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/goto-programs/set_properties.cpp 95.38% <ø> (ø)
... and 40 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 7127c4d...eb84153. Read the comment docs.

The first instruction of a function can reasonably have control
dependencies other than that of the function call. Pointer18 is such an
example, because there is a back edge to the beginning of the main
function.
Avoid a nested if when the top-level else and the inner if branch will
execute the same code. There is substantial white-space change in this
commit for it removes one level of indentation. No changes in behaviour
intended.
@tautschnig tautschnig force-pushed the bugfixes/control-deps branch from d8bd933 to eb84153 Compare March 11, 2022 21:22
@tautschnig tautschnig merged commit 5d89f25 into diffblue:develop Mar 11, 2022
@tautschnig tautschnig deleted the bugfixes/control-deps branch March 11, 2022 22:25
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.

4 participants