import org.checkerframework.checker.index.qual.LessThan;
import org.checkerframework.common.value.qual.IntRange;
public class Testing {
private static @IntRange(from = 0, to = 63) int firstNumber;
private static void method() {
@LessThan("this.firstNumber") int secondNumber = firstNumber & 7; // Error here
firstNumber -= secondNumber; // Error here
}
}
Running javac -processor org.checkerframework.checker.index.IndexChecker Testing.java issues two errors:
Error:(10, 83) java: [assignment.type.incompatible] incompatible types in assignment.
found : @LessThanUnknown int
required: @LessThan("Testing.firstNumber") int
Error:(11, 21) java: [compound.assignment.type.incompatible] incompatible result type in compound assignment.
found : @UnknownVal int
required: @IntRange(from=0, to=63) int
The first error tells that the checker doesn't know that 'firstNumber & 7' is less than 'firstNumber' (or equal). Note that for non-negative numbers, (number & 7) is the same as (number % 8). Changing @IntRange(from = 0, to = 63) ---> @IntRange(from = 1, to = 63), the first error disappears. Now consider the following snippet:
import org.checkerframework.checker.index.qual.IndexFor;
import org.checkerframework.checker.index.qual.LessThan;
import org.checkerframework.common.value.qual.ArrayLen;
public class Testing {
private static int @ArrayLen(64) [] array;
private static @IndexFor("this.array") int firstNumber;
private static void method() {
@LessThan("this.firstNumber") int secondNumber = firstNumber & 7; // Error here
firstNumber -= secondNumber;
}
}
The only difference is that firstNumber is annotated with @IndexFor, pointing to an array with 64 elements. It should take the same values as before (@IntRange(from = 0, to = 63)). However, the second error disappears. Maybe that's because the checker can't make the connection between @IntRange() and @IndexFor() correctly.
Consider this snippet:
Running javac -processor org.checkerframework.checker.index.IndexChecker Testing.java issues two errors:
The first error tells that the checker doesn't know that 'firstNumber & 7' is less than 'firstNumber' (or equal). Note that for non-negative numbers, (number & 7) is the same as (number % 8). Changing @IntRange(from = 0, to = 63) ---> @IntRange(from = 1, to = 63), the first error disappears. Now consider the following snippet:
The only difference is that firstNumber is annotated with
@IndexFor
, pointing to an array with 64 elements. It should take the same values as before (@IntRange(from = 0, to = 63)
). However, the second error disappears. Maybe that's because the checker can't make the connection between@IntRange()
and@IndexFor()
correctly.