Skip to content
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

fixed prematurely read issue of assignability analysis #190

Open
wants to merge 10 commits into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

roterEmil
Copy link
Collaborator

No description provided.

@roterEmil roterEmil requested a review from errt February 1, 2024 10:36
Copy link
Collaborator

@errt errt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Apart from the comments in the code, the tests fail with this PR, please have a look why and make sure tests succeed, as otherwise this can't be merged.


if (field.isPublic)
if (field.isPublic && !field.isFinal)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Wouldn't it be easier and more readable to just wrap the entire section into a separate if (!field.isFinal)?

} else {
receiverVar.isDefined && receiverVar.get.definedBy != SelfReferenceParameter
}
if (method.isInitializer && method.classFile == field.classFile) {
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this part of the code needs documentation to understand what all of the different conditions do

} else
receiverVar.get

// When there are more than 1 definitionsite, we soundly return true
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please fix grammar ("If there is more than one definition site, we soundly return true")

val stmt = stmts(index)

fieldWriteInMethodIndex == index || // The value is itself written to another object
// IMPROVE: Can we use field access information to care about reflective accesses here?
stmt.isPutField && stmt.asPutField.name != state.field.name ||
stmt.isAssignment && stmt.asAssignment.targetVar == assignedValueObjectVar ||
// stmt.isAssignment && stmt.asAssignment.targetVar == assignedValueObjectVar ||
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why is this code commented out? Was this done for debugging reasons and should be reinstantiated? Or is the commented out code wrong and not needed and should be removed?


C() {
super();
//this.b(this);
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why is this commented out? If it is needed, reinstantiate it, if it is unnecessary, remove it.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This was the example Marc gave me. I will remove the outcommented code as well as the function b()

static int n = 5;

public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("Value A.X before constructor:" + PrematurelyReadOfFinalField.n);
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Are these printlns necessary?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I will remove them.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants