Skip to content

Fix #12861 Hang in valueFlowCondition() with huge array #7757

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
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

clock999
Copy link
Contributor

I tested the fix based on 4617bc2.

Use the cppcheck to check the below code which is submitted on the ticket #12861.

#define ROW A, A, A, A, A, A, A, A,
#define ROW8 ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW
#define ROW64 ROW8 ROW8 ROW8 ROW8 ROW8 ROW8 ROW8 ROW8
#define ROW512 ROW64 ROW64 ROW64 ROW64 ROW64 ROW64 ROW64 ROW64
void f() {
	static const char A = 'a';
	const char a[] = {
		ROW512	ROW512 	ROW512	ROW512
	};
}

With the fix, the overall time is 1.52582s.
Without the fix, the time is 25.9674s.

I also tested the testrunner for running the whole of the unit tests. There is some performance improment with the fix, but not remarkable.

@chrchr-github
Copy link
Collaborator

Please add a test in test/cli/performance_test.py.

@firewave
Copy link
Collaborator

Please add a test in test/cli/performance_test.py.

The test already exists and it is the one failing with this change applied. So somehow this actually makes things worse.

@clock999
Copy link
Contributor Author

Yes, I will check it again. If I can't fix it, I will ignore this PR.

@clock999
Copy link
Contributor Author

I updated the commit. For the test case submitted by the ticket #12861, the performance is improved a lot, at least the consumed time can be reduced to less than 2 seconds. For other test cases, I don't have the exact testing data, but I think this can be helpful for the performance.

@chrchr-github
Copy link
Collaborator

Is there a reason not to implement caching in the regular astTop() function (i.e. why add astFinalTop())?

@clock999
Copy link
Contributor Author

clock999 commented Aug 23, 2025

Hi CHR, the process of creating the AST tree is a little complicated for me currently, and I can't figure out the details, that is also why I didn't modify the createAst(). As I understand, during TokenList::createAst(), the astTop() is used. But at that time, the createAst() has not been finished, so the top is a temporary one, which can not be cached as the final top. So we need two versions of the function, one is for creating ast, and another with the cache function is for the usage after the ast is created.
Maybe we can replaced the astTop with a new function name for createAst without cache function. And we keep astTop() added the cache that may be better for no confusion. Or we can add a param to astTop(bool iscache).

@chrchr-github
Copy link
Collaborator

I think this sounds reasonable: astTop(bool iscache). And please add a comment explaining the parameter.

@@ -1013,7 +1013,7 @@

const Token* isInLoopCondition(const Token* tok)
{
const Token* top = tok->astTop();
const Token* top = tok->astTop(true);

Check warning

Code scanning / CppCheck

Do not dereference null pointers Warning

Do not dereference null pointers
@@ -532,7 +532,7 @@
else
programMemoryParseCondition(pm, tok, nullptr, settings, b);
const Token* origin = tok;
const Token* top = tok->astTop();
const Token* top = tok->astTop(true);

Check warning

Code scanning / CppCheck

Do not dereference null pointers Warning

Do not dereference null pointers
Copy link

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.

3 participants