Skip to content
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

[Missing Definitions] definitions insertion order is not deterministic #224

Closed
mari-mari opened this issue Apr 11, 2023 · 2 comments · Fixed by #377
Closed

[Missing Definitions] definitions insertion order is not deterministic #224

mari-mari opened this issue Apr 11, 2023 · 2 comments · Fixed by #377
Assignees
Labels
feature-request New feature or request priority-low Low priority issue

Comments

@mari-mari
Copy link
Collaborator

mari-mari commented Apr 11, 2023

Proposal

Apparently we are using some sets somewhere in missing definitions, which results in non-deterministic definitions insertion order. It is not critical, since the inserted definitions are independent, however, in some cases it may lead to slightly different decompiled code.

Approach

We may want to use InsertionOrderedSet from decompiler.util instead to store undefined variables.

@fnhartmann
Copy link
Collaborator

/cib

Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Jan 9, 2024

github-actions bot added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 9, 2024
@fnhartmann fnhartmann self-assigned this Jan 9, 2024
mari-mari pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jan 24, 2024
#377)

* Create draft PR for #224

* Used InsertionOrderedSet to store undefined variables

* Changed union to InsertionOrderedSet return value

* Black formatting

* Remove unnecessary type check

* Added test

---------

Co-authored-by: fnhartmann <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
feature-request New feature or request priority-low Low priority issue
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants