Skip to content

Fix pointer validity instrumentation for incomplete array types #8750

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Fix pointer validity instrumentation for incomplete array types #8750

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

@tautschnig
Copy link
Collaborator

@tautschnig tautschnig commented Nov 29, 2025

Use the same fall-back as is done for void pointers.

Fixes: #8700

  • Each commit message has a non-empty body, explaining why the change was made.
  • n/a Methods or procedures I have added are documented, following the guidelines provided in CODING_STANDARD.md.
  • n/a The feature or user visible behaviour I have added or modified has been documented in the User Guide in doc/cprover-manual/
  • Regression or unit tests are included, or existing tests cover the modified code (in this case I have detailed which ones those are in the commit message).
  • n/a My commit message includes data points confirming performance improvements (if claimed).
  • My PR is restricted to a single feature or bugfix.
  • n/a White-space or formatting changes outside the feature-related changed lines are in commits of their own.

@tautschnig tautschnig marked this pull request as draft November 30, 2025 22:44
@tautschnig tautschnig force-pushed the fix-8700-pointer-validity branch 3 times, most recently from 5327ded to 3fcb729 Compare December 2, 2025 10:53
@tautschnig
Fix pointer validity instrumentation for incomplete array types
e9d3ac0 
Use the same fall-back as is done for void pointers.

Fixes: diffblue#8700
@tautschnig tautschnig force-pushed the fix-8700-pointer-validity branch from 3fcb729 to e9d3ac0 Compare December 2, 2025 11:53
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 2, 2025

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 91.30435% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 80.00%. Comparing base (1505c36) to head (e9d3ac0).

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
src/goto-instrument/contracts/utils.cpp 60.00% 2 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files 
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #8750      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    80.00%   80.00%   -0.01%     
===========================================
  Files         1700     1700              
  Lines       188254   188258       +4     
  Branches        73       73              
===========================================
+ Hits        150615   150618       +3     
- Misses       37639    37640       +1

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@tautschnig tautschnig marked this pull request as ready for review December 2, 2025 17:15
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@feliperodri feliperodri feliperodri approved these changes

@remi-delmas-3000 remi-delmas-3000 Awaiting requested review from remi-delmas-3000 remi-delmas-3000 is a code owner

@kroening kroening Awaiting requested review from kroening kroening is a code owner

@peterschrammel peterschrammel Awaiting requested review from peterschrammel peterschrammel is a code owner

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

Assignees

@kroening kroening

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Invariant violation in pointer validity check

3 participants

@tautschnig @feliperodri @kroening