SSA: Distinguish between has and controls branch edge. #19567
Conversation
github-actions
bot
added
C#
JS
C++
Java
Ruby
Rust
| /** | ||
| * Holds if this guard evaluating to `branch` controls the control-flow | ||
| * branch edge from `bb1` to `bb2`. That is, following the edge from | ||
| * `bb1` to `bb2` implies that this guard evaluated to `branch`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps add an example to illustrate how this can differ from hasBranchEdge.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's the general distinction between direct and indirect control. E.g. if (g) .. vs. b = g; .. if (b) ... I can of course elaborate the qldoc here, but I'm thinking perhaps just leaving it as-is, and then focusing on a more comprehensive elaboration in the upcoming shared Guards library - eventually these two predicates will simply be taken directly from that shared library.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, that is what I was thinking; simply add that example to the QL doc.
aschackmull
added
no-change-note-required
|
Dca looks completely fine. This is technically a breaking change for any users of the SSA data flow integration module, so I've added a change note to the SSA qlpack. |
2 participants
For languages without a guards implication logic,
hasBranchEdgeandcontrolsBranchEdgeis the same thing, but libraries like SSA should distinguish between them. This might theoretically improve barrier guards a bit for Java, but more importantly this prepares us a bit for the introduction of a shared Guards library.