add pointer-to-pointer test cases #585
Conversation
| n[10]: addr.store n[0] => _ @ bb4[2]: fn ptrptr1_bidir; (*(*_2)) = const 1_i32; | ||
| n[11]: copy n[0] => _59 @ bb35[6]: fn main_0; _59 = _45; | ||
| n[12]: copy n[11] => _2 @ bb0[0]: fn ptrptr1_bidir; _58 = ptrptr1_bidir(const false, move _59, move _60); | ||
| n[13]: addr.store n[0] => _ @ bb4[2]: fn ptrptr1_bidir; (*(*_2)) = const 1_i32; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
n[0] is not the correct source here - you can tell because n[0] has dest: _45, but _45 doesn't appear in this statement. The source should instead be n[12] (which has dest: _2).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should this be any different than here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Both places have both problems (wrong source and AddrStore where it should be AddrLoad), as does the third (*(*x)) = y in this function.
| n[1]: copy n[0] => _50 @ bb32[28]: fn main_0; _50 = _45; | ||
| n[2]: copy n[1] => _2 @ bb0[0]: fn ptrptr1_backward; _49 = ptrptr1_backward(const true, move _50, move _51); | ||
| n[3]: copy n[2] => _4 @ bb1[1]: fn ptrptr1_backward; _4 = _2; | ||
| n[4]: addr.store n[0] => _ @ bb4[2]: fn ptrptr1_backward; (*(*_4)) = const 1_i32; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This node should be a LoadAddr instead of StoreAddr. The statement (*(*_4)) = 1 is equivalent to the following:
p = *_4;
*p = 1;This graph covers the object pointed to by _4, so the LoadAddr for the p = *_4 part should appear here. (The StoreAddr for *p = 1 should go in a different graph.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
thanks, linking #578 which will fix this once addressed
| @@ -959,6 +959,50 @@ g { | |||
| } | |||
| nodes_that_need_write = [75, 74, 73, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 54, 53, 52, 45, 44, 43, 33, 32, 31, 27, 26, 25, 15, 14, 13, 6, 5, 4, 0] | |||
|
|
|||
| g { | |||
| n[0]: &_43 _ => _44 @ bb32[9]: fn main_0; _44 = &raw mut _43; | |||
| } | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since _44 is address-taken, this graph should look like AddrOfLocal(_43) -> StoreValue, and there should be a corresponding StoreAddr in the graph below that starts with AddrOfLocal(_44).
The p = *_4; *p = 1 code should also produce a LoadValue -> p -> StoreAddr chain somewhere, possibly in this graph (since p will concretely equal &_43).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Which statement would the StoreValue result from? From my understanding it would need a store on the LHS, and a RHS that evaluates to the value _43, but I don't see where that is. My guess is that it must be *p = 1?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It should come from the statement _44 = &raw mut _43. Since _44 is address-taken, we treat this like
a = &mut _44;
*a = &raw mut _43;Which produces the chains AddrOfLocal(_44) -> a -> StoreAddr and AddrOfLocal(_43) -> StoreValue.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That makes sense, thank you
No description provided.