-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 273
fix shift overflow in irep_hash_container #493
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
Merged
kroening
merged 2 commits into
diffblue:master
from
mgudemann:fix_shift_overflow_irep_hash_container
Feb 8, 2017
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -12,16 +12,17 @@ Author: Daniel Kroening, [email protected] | |
#include <cstdlib> // for size_t | ||
#include <vector> | ||
|
||
#include "irep_hash.h" | ||
#include "numbering.h" | ||
|
||
class irept; | ||
|
||
class irep_hash_container_baset | ||
{ | ||
public: | ||
unsigned number(const irept &irep); | ||
size_t number(const irept &irep); | ||
|
||
irep_hash_container_baset(bool _full):full(_full) | ||
explicit irep_hash_container_baset(bool _full):full(_full) | ||
{ | ||
} | ||
|
||
|
@@ -36,33 +37,34 @@ class irep_hash_container_baset | |
|
||
// this is the first level: address of the content | ||
|
||
struct pointer_hash | ||
struct pointer_hasht | ||
{ | ||
inline size_t operator()(const void *p) const | ||
{ | ||
return (size_t)p; | ||
} | ||
}; | ||
|
||
typedef std::unordered_map<const void *, unsigned, pointer_hash> ptr_hasht; | ||
typedef std::unordered_map<const void *, size_t, pointer_hasht> | ||
ptr_hasht; | ||
ptr_hasht ptr_hash; | ||
|
||
// this is the second level: content | ||
|
||
typedef std::vector<unsigned> packedt; | ||
typedef std::vector<size_t> packedt; | ||
|
||
struct vector_hash | ||
struct vector_hasht | ||
{ | ||
inline size_t operator()(const packedt &p) const | ||
{ | ||
size_t result=p.size(); | ||
for(unsigned i=0; i<p.size(); i++) | ||
result^=p[i]<<i; | ||
size_t result=p.size(); // seed | ||
for(auto elem : p) | ||
result=hash_combine(result, elem); | ||
return result; | ||
} | ||
}; | ||
|
||
typedef hash_numbering<packedt, vector_hash> numberingt; | ||
typedef hash_numbering<packedt, vector_hasht> numberingt; | ||
numberingt numbering; | ||
|
||
void pack(const irept &irep, packedt &); | ||
|
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In #376 I took the view that those are effectively operations, and thus went for a linter override. I don't claim any authority on that, and your approach seems perfectly valid. Just noting.