-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6.3k
Rework purity flag setting for constant variables accessed via member access. #16376
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
Open
rodiazet
wants to merge
12
commits into
develop
Choose a base branch
from
fix-sanity-check
base: develop
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+893
−76
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
12 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
8705a87
Rework `TypeChecker` for `MemberAccess`
rodiazet 4087839
Rework `nativeMembers` implementation for `TypeType`
rodiazet 9e58041
Update and add tests after `TypeChecker` rework.
rodiazet 525dc49
Add better coverage for testing function selector purity.
rodiazet e2fb1b8
Fix
rodiazet d67d720
Make interna function and constant pointers pure
rodiazet 2757837
Set external functions pointers for constant contracts pure.
rodiazet 5f2da49
Add tests
rodiazet d16558d
Rework `typeViaContractName`
rodiazet de5e56b
Rework `typeViaContractName`
rodiazet 923e3c8
Rework `typeViaContractName`
rodiazet 800369b
Rework `typeViaContractName`
rodiazet File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You're only handling
FunctionType,TypeTypeand things associated with a variable declaration. I think originally this covered more cases:Category::Module(i.e. module accessed through another module,M1.M2). Original code would make it pure because the member expression is anIdentifierand those are pure when they refer to modules:solidity/libsolidity/analysis/TypeChecker.cpp
Lines 3703 to 3704 in 2673c4b
After your changes I think we'll reach the
!annotation.isPure.set()at the end of the function instead and set it to false.MagicVariableDeclaration. I think this one cannot occur on a module, but I'd assert against that.