<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Jul 14, 2011, at 10:21 PM, Ted Kremenek wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div><blockquote type="cite">- CFBugReports use function call summaries to show the retain/release history of a leaked object. Function summaries are currently associated with ExplodedNodes in a DenseMap. In addition to being somewhat inefficient (summaries for calls that have nothing to do with ref-counting are also saved), Checkers are const, and so can't store summaries in a mutable data structure. (Marking the map 'mutable' doesn't feel like the right solution.) I don't have a solution for this.<br></blockquote><br>I don't actually see an issue here, but I recognize your concerns. Let's separate your two statements.<br><br>First, the primary and original role of the function summaries is to memoize the behavior of a function/method call for quick application during evalCall. It's a computational hack. I should add that Checkers are not strictly const. They are allowed to contain data. What they shouldn't record is data specific to analyzing a given function or path. All that data should be in GRState. There is no reason, however, that Checkers cannot have any on-the-side data to cache computation that they do over and over again, particularly if it has nothing to do with a specific path.</div></span></blockquote></div><br><div>One amendment: I do recognize that the checker call backs are currently marked 'const'. I took this road to enforce a mentality that the checker writers should think about keeping state in GRState, and not in the checker itself. First-time checker writers often don't understand why keeping information specific to a path in GRState is so critical. This decision can always be revisited.</div><div><br></div><div>My point, however, was that the idea of keeping data associated with a Checker is not strictly taboo if done correctly. If we want to enforce the 'const'ness strictly, then it may be worthwhile to provide checkers a way to store other side data.</div></body></html>