You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I'm a silly billy. I've made the early-out-at-end action target paths on which the In_loop flag is active. This is not the same as 'innermost block is loop'; it is, in fact, 'any block in the path is a loop', and as such it results in things like
while (A) {
if (B) {
C;
// TARGET HERE
}
D;
}
Clearly this isn't right; if we insert a continue at the given position, the semantics will be wrong.
This is a fuzzer bug, but, again, it's one where the solution will need some creative thinking. We need a way of doing one of the following:
being able to cancel observed flags (this would have weird semantics, as it would only work well with flags in positive positions);
being able to specify (positive-only) flag checks on the inmost block inside a path filter (bit convoluted);
attaching block requirements to anchors (a bit strange);
something else?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I'm a silly billy. I've made the early-out-at-end action target paths on which the
In_loop
flag is active. This is not the same as 'innermost block is loop'; it is, in fact, 'any block in the path is a loop', and as such it results in things likeClearly this isn't right; if we insert a
continue
at the given position, the semantics will be wrong.This is a fuzzer bug, but, again, it's one where the solution will need some creative thinking. We need a way of doing one of the following:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: