Re: [PATCH] analyzer: Impose recursion limit on indirect calls.

[David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat.com>]

On Wed, 2021-08-25 at 21:25 +0530, Ankur Saini wrote:
> 
> 
> > On 25-Aug-2021, at 8:35 PM, David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, 2021-08-25 at 20:31 +0530, Ankur Saini wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > On 25-Aug-2021, at 7:24 PM, Martin Liška <mliska@suse.cz>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > On 8/25/21 15:22, David Malcolm via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 2021-08-25 at 13:39 +0530, Ankur Saini wrote:
> > > > > > This should also fix the failing regression found in PR
> > > > > > analyzer/101980.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > - The patch is in sync with current master
> > > > > > - successfully bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-linux-gnu.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > The patch is OK for trunk.
> > > > > Thanks for fixing this
> > > > > Dave
> > > > 
> > > > Hello.
> > > > 
> > > > Quite accidentally, but I noticed the patch violates GNU coding
> > > > style:
> > > > 
> > > > $ git show 43a5d46feabd93ba78983919234f05f5fc9a0982 |
> > > > ./contrib/check_GNU_style.py -
> > > > 
> > > > === ERROR type #1: blocks of 8 spaces should be replaced with
> > > > tabs
> > > > (8 error(s)) ===
> > > > 
> > > > gcc/analyzer/engine.cc:3064:0:████████ that exceed it further.
> > > > 
> > > > gcc/analyzer/engine.cc:3065:0:████████ This is something of a
> > > > blunt
> > > > workaround, but it only
> > > > 
> > > > gcc/analyzer/engine.cc:3066:0:████████ applies to recursion
> > > > (and
> > > > mutual recursion), not to
> > > > 
> > > > gcc/analyzer/engine.cc:3067:0:████████ general call stacks.  */
> > > > 
> > > > gcc/analyzer/engine.cc:3069:0:████████  >
> > > > param_analyzer_max_recursion_depth)
> > > > 
> > > > gcc/analyzer/engine.cc:3071:0:████████if (logger)
> > > > 
> > > > gcc/analyzer/engine.cc:3072:0:████████  logger->log ("rejecting
> > > > call edge: recursion limit exceeded");
> > > > 
> > > > gcc/analyzer/engine.cc:3073:0:████████return false;
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Looks like my editor again converted all the tabs to spaces.
> > > 
> > > btw, I can also see a lot of other places where 8 spaces are not
> > > begin converted to tabs, should I also change that accordingly or
> > > leave them the way it is and just update this patch ?
> > 
> > It's usually best to split out bugfixes from formatting/whitespace
> > changes, so maybe do it as two patches:
> > 
> > (1) an updated version of this patch to fix the recursion issue,
> > using
> > the correct whitespace for the lines that are touched
> 
> unfortunately, I already checked in and pushed the changes to the
> master before this was pointed out. 

Fair enough.

> But I can add them to the whitespace issue patch.

Sounds good.
Dave

> 
> > 
> > (2) a patch that fixes whitespaces issues, but doesn't change the
> > behavior of the code
> > 
> > 
> > Dave
>