Conversation
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Wanted to redo jump table parsing using the knowledge I've obtained about how jump tables are detected. Ended up writing a bunch of tests, identified skeletons of what jump table detection looks like, (for the most part) reduced the number of hacks from 0.1.0.
Notably, I removed the initial pdata related asserts that I had placed, as those asserts were assuming the known end of a function was reached on the first run of CFA, not having realized that multiple run throughs may be required depending on the number of branches and overall complexity.
With all these changes, most of my test xexes now pass CFA, and any failures I see now do not appear to be jump table related.