Simple Example
A.java
public int sub(int a, int b) { return a - b; } public int testRefactored (int refs, int flags) { if (flags != 0) return flags * sub(flags, flags*3); else if (refs != 0) return refs; return 10; }
(or ( and (distinct flags_2_SYMINT 0) (= RETURN ( * (flags_2_SYMINT- (flags_2_SYMINT * 3)) flags_2_SYMINT)) ) ( and (distinct refs_1_SYMINT 0) (= flags_2_SYMINT 0) (= RETURN refs_1_SYMINT) ) ( and (= refs_1_SYMINT 0) (= flags_2_SYMINT 0) (= RETURN 10) ) )JPF is smart enough to understand sub() method to give the correct constraints
RETURN ( * (flags_2_SYMINT- (flags_2_SYMINT * 3)
B.java
public int sub(int a, int b) { return a - b; } public int testRefactored (int refs, int flags) { if (flags != 0) return flags; else if (refs != 0) return refs; return 10; }
(or ( and (distinct flags_2_SYMINT 0) (= RETURN flags_2_SYMINT) ) ( and (distinct refs_1_SYMINT 0) (= flags_2_SYMINT 0) (= RETURN refs_1_SYMINT) ) ( and (= refs_1_SYMINT 0) (= flags_2_SYMINT 0) (= RETURN 10) ) )
More complex
With this example:public int sub(int a, int b) { if (a > b) return (a - b); else return (10*a + b); } public int test (int refs, int flags) { if (flags != 0) return flags * sub(flags, flags*3); << This line causes an issue else if (refs != 0) return refs; return 10; }JPF works fine to generate the correct summary:
testCase=test(-100,-100);pc=( > flags_2_SYMINT[-100] ( * flags_2_SYMINT[-100] CONST_3)) && ( != flags_2_SYMINT[-100] CONST_0);effects=RETURN==( * (flags_2_SYMINT[-100] - (flags_2_SYMINT[-100] * CONST_3)) flags_2_SYMINT[-100]);solverCalls=2;statementsExecuted=[];positionsExecuted=[];constraints=none testCase=test(1,1);pc=( <= flags_2_SYMINT[1] ( * flags_2_SYMINT[1] CONST_3)) && ( != flags_2_SYMINT[1] CONST_0);effects=RETURN==( * ((flags_2_SYMINT[1] * CONST_3) + (flags_2_SYMINT[1] * CONST_10)) flags_2_SYMINT[1]);solverCalls=2;statementsExecuted=[];positionsExecuted=[];constraints=none testCase=test(-100,-100);pc=( != refs_1_SYMINT[-100] CONST_0) && ( == flags_2_SYMINT[0] CONST_0);effects=RETURN==refs_1_SYMINT[-100];solverCalls=2;statementsExecuted=[];positionsExecuted=[];constraints=none testCase=test(0,0);pc=( == refs_1_SYMINT[0] CONST_0) && ( == flags_2_SYMINT[0] CONST_0);effects=RETURN==10;solverCalls=2;statementsExecuted=[];positionsExecuted=[];constraints=noneOnly to get something's wrong with the listener:
(or ( and (> flags_2_SYMINT ( * flags_2_SYMINT 3)) (distinct flags_2_SYMINT 0) (= RETURN ( * (flags_2_SYMINT- (flags_2_SYMINT * 3)) flags_2_SYMINT)) ) ( and (<= flags_2_SYMINT ( * flags_2_SYMINT 3)) (distinct flags_2_SYMINT 0) (= RETURN ( * ((flags_2_SYMINT * 3)+ (flags_2_SYMINT * 10)) flags_2_SYMINT)) ) ( and (distinct refs_1_SYMINT 0) (= flags_2_SYMINT 0) (= RETURN refs_1_SYMINT) ) ( and (= refs_1_SYMINT 0) (= flags_2_SYMINT 0) (= RETURN 10) ) ) ( and (<= flags_2_SYMINT ( * flags_2_SYMINT 3)) (distinct flags_2_SYMINT 0) (= RETURN ( * ((flags_2_SYMINT * 3)+ (flags_2_SYMINT * 10)) flags_... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (error "Invalid beginning of an identifer: expected either 'as' or '_' here") Executing the script... ( and (<= flags_2_SYMINT ( * flags_2_SYMINT 3)) (distinct flags_2_SYMINT 0) (= RETURN ( * ((flags_2_SYMINT * 3)+ (flags_2_SYMINT * 10)) flags_... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (error "Invalid beginning of an identifer: expected either 'as' or '_' here")
sub(flags, flags*3)I think the generated code should have been (* flags_2_SYMINT 3).
Research questions
- How does the listener work to transform summary into S-expression code
- How do I modify the listener to resolve this issue?
No comments:
Post a Comment