refactor AE, use worklist algorithm(naive) #1786
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
bjjwwang
commented
Jan 26, 2026
| // This maps cycle head nodes to their corresponding WTO cycles for efficient lookup | ||
| for (auto& [func, wto] : funcToWTO) | ||
| { | ||
| // Recursive lambda to collect cycle heads from nested WTO components |
bjjwwang
changed the title
added 2 commits
January 28, 2026 15:26
Collaborator
|
Needs to fix this CI and move the precision-loss test case to a separate folder and address it after optimizations are enabled in later implementation. |
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1786 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 64.15% 64.14% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 243 243
Lines 24569 24624 +55
Branches 4627 4657 +30
==========================================
+ Hits 15762 15796 +34
- Misses 8807 8828 +21
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
added 2 commits
January 31, 2026 22:42
I think you could continue to narrow down the usage of OPtions::HandleREcur(). I mean maybe you could put the option check inside the function.
For example,
"// Check if this recursive call should be skipped
if (shouldSkipRecursiveCall(callNode, funObjVar))
{
// In TOP mode, set return value and stores to TOP
// In WIDEN\_ONLY/WIDEN\_NARROW, just skip (WTO handles it)
if (Options::HandleRecur() == TOP)
handleSkippedRecursiveCall(callNode);
return;
}
"
maybe you should move the if check inside the function. You could try this way to reduce the Options::handleRecur as low as possible.
I think you could continue to narrow down the usage of OPtions::HandleREcur(). I mean maybe you could put the option check inside the function.
For example,
"// Check if this recursive call should be skipped
if (shouldSkipRecursiveCall(callNode, funObjVar))
{
// In TOP mode, set return value and stores to TOP
// In WIDEN\_ONLY/WIDEN\_NARROW, just skip (WTO handles it)
if (Options::HandleRecur() == TOP)
handleSkippedRecursiveCall(callNode);
return;
}
"
maybe you should move the if check inside the function. You could try this way to reduce the Options::handleRecur as low as possible.
yuleisui
reviewed
Feb 2, 2026
| nonRecursiveCallSites.end(); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| /// Recursion Handling Decision Methods |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add examples for three cases.
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
describe what are set to top, where is widened and narrowed.
I think you could continue to narrow down the usage of OPtions::HandleREcur(). I mean maybe you could put the option check inside the function.
For example,
"// Check if this recursive call should be skipped
if (shouldSkipRecursiveCall(callNode, funObjVar))
{
// In TOP mode, set return value and stores to TOP
// In WIDEN\_ONLY/WIDEN\_NARROW, just skip (WTO handles it)
if (Options::HandleRecur() == TOP)
handleSkippedRecursiveCall(callNode);
return;
}
"
maybe you should move the if check inside the function. You could try this way to reduce the Options::handleRecur as low as possible.
yuleisui
reviewed
Feb 2, 2026
| } | ||
|
|
||
| bool AbstractInterpretation::shouldApplyNarrowingInRecursion(const FunObjVar* fun) | ||
| { |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
add an assertion if this is not recursion function.
yuleisui
reviewed
Feb 2, 2026
| /// All recursion mode (TOP/WIDEN_ONLY/WIDEN_NARROW) logic is centralized here | ||
|
|
||
| bool AbstractInterpretation::skipRecursiveCall( | ||
| const CallICFGNode* callNode, const FunObjVar* callee) |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
callNode is enough as the argument.
added 7 commits
February 2, 2026 16:25
I think you could continue to narrow down the usage of OPtions::HandleREcur(). I mean maybe you could put the option check inside the function.
For example,
"// Check if this recursive call should be skipped
if (shouldSkipRecursiveCall(callNode, funObjVar))
{
// In TOP mode, set return value and stores to TOP
// In WIDEN\_ONLY/WIDEN\_NARROW, just skip (WTO handles it)
if (Options::HandleRecur() == TOP)
handleSkippedRecursiveCall(callNode);
return;
}
"
maybe you should move the if check inside the function. You could try this way to reduce the Options::handleRecur as low as possible.
I think you could continue to narrow down the usage of OPtions::HandleREcur(). I mean maybe you could put the option check inside the function.
For example,
"// Check if this recursive call should be skipped
if (shouldSkipRecursiveCall(callNode, funObjVar))
{
// In TOP mode, set return value and stores to TOP
// In WIDEN\_ONLY/WIDEN\_NARROW, just skip (WTO handles it)
if (Options::HandleRecur() == TOP)
handleSkippedRecursiveCall(callNode);
return;
}
"
maybe you should move the if check inside the function. You could try this way to reduce the Options::handleRecur as low as possible.
I think you could continue to narrow down the usage of OPtions::HandleREcur(). I mean maybe you could put the option check inside the function.
For example,
"// Check if this recursive call should be skipped
if (shouldSkipRecursiveCall(callNode, funObjVar))
{
// In TOP mode, set return value and stores to TOP
// In WIDEN\_ONLY/WIDEN\_NARROW, just skip (WTO handles it)
if (Options::HandleRecur() == TOP)
handleSkippedRecursiveCall(callNode);
return;
}
"
maybe you should move the if check inside the function. You could try this way to reduce the Options::handleRecur as low as possible.
I think you could continue to narrow down the usage of OPtions::HandleREcur(). I mean maybe you could put the option check inside the function.
For example,
"// Check if this recursive call should be skipped
if (shouldSkipRecursiveCall(callNode, funObjVar))
{
// In TOP mode, set return value and stores to TOP
// In WIDEN\_ONLY/WIDEN\_NARROW, just skip (WTO handles it)
if (Options::HandleRecur() == TOP)
handleSkippedRecursiveCall(callNode);
return;
}
"
maybe you should move the if check inside the function. You could try this way to reduce the Options::handleRecur as low as possible.
I think you could continue to narrow down the usage of OPtions::HandleREcur(). I mean maybe you could put the option check inside the function.
For example,
"// Check if this recursive call should be skipped
if (shouldSkipRecursiveCall(callNode, funObjVar))
{
// In TOP mode, set return value and stores to TOP
// In WIDEN\_ONLY/WIDEN\_NARROW, just skip (WTO handles it)
if (Options::HandleRecur() == TOP)
handleSkippedRecursiveCall(callNode);
return;
}
"
maybe you should move the if check inside the function. You could try this way to reduce the Options::handleRecur as low as possible.
I think you could continue to narrow down the usage of OPtions::HandleREcur(). I mean maybe you could put the option check inside the function.
For example,
"// Check if this recursive call should be skipped
if (shouldSkipRecursiveCall(callNode, funObjVar))
{
// In TOP mode, set return value and stores to TOP
// In WIDEN\_ONLY/WIDEN\_NARROW, just skip (WTO handles it)
if (Options::HandleRecur() == TOP)
handleSkippedRecursiveCall(callNode);
return;
}
"
maybe you should move the if check inside the function. You could try this way to reduce the Options::handleRecur as low as possible.
I think you could continue to narrow down the usage of OPtions::HandleREcur(). I mean maybe you could put the option check inside the function.
For example,
"// Check if this recursive call should be skipped
if (shouldSkipRecursiveCall(callNode, funObjVar))
{
// In TOP mode, set return value and stores to TOP
// In WIDEN\_ONLY/WIDEN\_NARROW, just skip (WTO handles it)
if (Options::HandleRecur() == TOP)
handleSkippedRecursiveCall(callNode);
return;
}
"
maybe you should move the if check inside the function. You could try this way to reduce the Options::handleRecur as low as possible.
yuleisui
reviewed
Feb 3, 2026
| } | ||
|
|
||
| /// handle wto cycle (loop) using worklist-compatible widening/narrowing iteration | ||
| /// Handle WTO cycle (loop or recursive function) using widening/narrowing iteration. |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The name is ICFG cycle now?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
maybe can rename handleICFGCycleOrRecursion.
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
HandleLoopOrRecursion. It would also be good to note that ICFGNode cycles refers to loops only, not interprocedural ICFGNode cycles
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
HandleLoopOrRecursion. It would also be good to note that ICFGNode cycles refers to loops only, not interprocedural ICFGNode cycles
Sure
yuleisui
reviewed
Feb 3, 2026
| // Skip recursive call if applicable (returns true if skipped) | ||
| if (skipRecursiveCall(callNode, funObjVar)) | ||
| return; | ||
| const FunObjVar* callee = getCallee(callNode); |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
are we using the andersen's points-to result here?
I think handling indirectcall is the same as handling direct call if the calleenode is known? Can the code below be shared with the direct call handling.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
are we using the andersen's points-to result here?
I think handling indirectcall is the same as handling direct call if the calleenode is known? Can the code below be shared with the direct call handling.
we use Address Domain here.
Yes, I am trying to merge them.
added 2 commits
February 3, 2026 15:40
I think you could continue to narrow down the usage of OPtions::HandleREcur(). I mean maybe you could put the option check inside the function.
For example,
"// Check if this recursive call should be skipped
if (shouldSkipRecursiveCall(callNode, funObjVar))
{
// In TOP mode, set return value and stores to TOP
// In WIDEN\_ONLY/WIDEN\_NARROW, just skip (WTO handles it)
if (Options::HandleRecur() == TOP)
handleSkippedRecursiveCall(callNode);
return;
}
"
maybe you should move the if check inside the function. You could try this way to reduce the Options::handleRecur as low as possible.
yuleisui
reviewed
Feb 4, 2026
| */ | ||
| virtual void handleSVFStatement(const SVFStmt* stmt); | ||
|
|
||
| virtual void setRecursiveCallStoresToTop(const CallICFGNode* callnode); |
yuleisui
reviewed
Feb 4, 2026
| virtual void directCallFunPass(const CallICFGNode* callNode); | ||
| virtual bool isIndirectCall(const CallICFGNode* callNode); | ||
| virtual void indirectCallFunPass(const CallICFGNode* callNode); | ||
| virtual void callFunPass(const CallICFGNode* callNode); |
你方便把 setRecursiveCallStoresToTop改名setTopToObjInRecursion 然后把callFunPass 改名HandleFunCall吗？ 改名就行
bjjwwang
changed the title
yuleisui
reviewed
Feb 4, 2026
| if (isExtCall(callNode)) | ||
| { | ||
| indirectCallFunPass(callNode); | ||
| extCallPass(callNode); |
yuleisui
reviewed
Feb 4, 2026
| assert(false && "implement this part"); | ||
| { | ||
| // Handle both direct and indirect calls uniformly | ||
| HandleFunCall(callNode); |
added 2 commits
February 4, 2026 14:52
你方便把 setRecursiveCallStoresToTop改名setTopToObjInRecursion 然后把callFunPass 改名HandleFunCall吗？ 改名就行
你方便把 setRecursiveCallStoresToTop改名setTopToObjInRecursion 然后把callFunPass 改名HandleFunCall吗？ 改名就行
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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.
Pre-Requisite: Should Merge this Test Suite PR
Introduction: This PR replace wto with worklist algotihm, naive version.
May Need To Discuss: At svf/lib/AE/Svfexe/AbstractInterpretation.cpp line 145, I use a lambda code to build cycleHeadToCycle map. Maybe I can change it to a member function.
Next PR: Use-Def Pre-Analysis Map.