Skip to content

[Documentation] The BMC algorithm. #3396

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 22, 2018
Merged

[Documentation] The BMC algorithm. #3396

merged 1 commit into from
Nov 22, 2018

Conversation

johanneskloos
Copy link
Member

This extends the background concepts section with a description of the BMC algorithm. Review needed!

Documentation only commit:

  • [n/a] Each commit message has a non-empty body, explaining why the change was made.
  • [n/a] Methods or procedures I have added are documented, following the guidelines provided in CODING_STANDARD.md.
  • [n/a] Regression or unit tests are included, or existing tests cover the modified code (in this case I have detailed which ones those are in the commit message).
  • [n/a] My commit message includes data points confirming performance improvements (if claimed).
  • My PR is restricted to a single feature or bugfix.
  • White-space or formatting changes outside the feature-related changed lines are in commits of their own.

@johanneskloos
Copy link
Member Author

Ping @tautschnig - can you have a look at this section, please?

Copy link
Contributor

@allredj allredj left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

✔️
Passed Diffblue compatibility checks (cbmc commit: 6f3b712).
Build URL: https://travis-ci.com/diffblue/test-gen/builds/91241953

Copy link
Contributor

@xbauch xbauch left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Really like the examples. I'm not sure it was necessary to go that deep into bit-vectors, but now that it's there, I think it's good.

We can then assert that `fac`=1 using
the propositional formula
`fac`<sub>63</sub> = 0 and ... and `fac`<sub>1</sub> = 0 and `fac`<sub>0</sub> = 1,
where we define the formula A = B as ''(A and B) or ((not A) and (not B))''.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we'd rather do ((not A) or B) and (A or (not B)) to be closer to CNF.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Changed to (A or not B) and (B or not A) to save braces.

@@ -696,8 +696,8 @@ is to encode both the program and the set of states using an appropriate logic,
mostly *propositional logic* and (fragments of) *first-order logic*.

In the following, we will quickly discuss propositional logic, in combination
with SAT solving, and show how to build a simple bounded model checker for
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why remove this restriction?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

My original intention was to show bounded model checking on code that's essentially a finite-state automaton, but that's actually not very helpful. Should I add the restriction back?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@peterschrammel Any further comments?

@@ -696,8 +696,8 @@ is to encode both the program and the set of states using an appropriate logic,
mostly *propositional logic* and (fragments of) *first-order logic*.

In the following, we will quickly discuss propositional logic, in combination
with SAT solving, and show how to build a simple bounded model checker for
a finite-state program. Actual bounded model checking for software requires
with SAT solving, and show how to build a simple bounded model checker
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

checker.

Copy link
Contributor

@allredj allredj left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

✔️
Passed Diffblue compatibility checks (cbmc commit: 3314ed3).
Build URL: https://travis-ci.com/diffblue/test-gen/builds/91378314

@peterschrammel
Copy link
Member

@johanneskloos, please squash the commits.

Copy link
Contributor

@allredj allredj left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

✔️
Passed Diffblue compatibility checks (cbmc commit: 33fac5d).
Build URL: https://travis-ci.com/diffblue/test-gen/builds/91657871

@johnnonweiler johnnonweiler merged commit 46c77e4 into diffblue:develop Nov 22, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants