Updated language use in cbmc-unwinding.md #3533
Conversation
edstenson
commented
Dec 5, 2018
edstenson
commented
- Each commit message has a non-empty body, explaining why the change was made.
- NOT RELEVANT Methods or procedures I have added are documented, following the guidelines provided in CODING_STANDARD.md.
- The feature or user visible behaviour I have added or modified has been documented in the User Guide in doc/cprover-manual/
- NOT RELEVANT 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).
- NOT RELEVANT 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.
edstenson
requested review from
chrisr-diffblue,
kroening,
peterschrammel,
smowton and
tautschnig
as code owners
doc/cprover-manual/cbmc-unwinding.md
Outdated
| @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ | |||
|
|
|||
| ### Iteration-based Unwinding | |||
|
|
|||
| The basic idea of CBMC is to model the computation of the programs up to | |||
| The basic idea of CBMC is to model the computation of the programs down to | |||
| a particular depth. Technically, this is achieved by a process that | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would say that the change above is un-idiomatic.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I know what you mean. My original edit was simply to change from 'up to' to 'to'. I added the down at the last minute. The basic issue here is that you can't go up to a depth.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would you be ok with just 'to'?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is a bigger rewrite of that sentence on the cards? How about: "The basic idea of CBMC is to model a program's execution up to a bounded number of steps."
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks, folks. Appreciate your help. I've included that sentence and pushed the file again.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🚫
This PR failed Diffblue compatibility checks (cbmc commit: c930c9c).
Build URL: https://travis-ci.com/diffblue/test-gen/builds/93708712
Status will be re-evaluated on next push.
Please contact @peterschrammel, @thk123, or @allredj for support.
Common spurious failures:
- the cbmc commit has disappeared in the mean time (e.g. in a force-push)
- the author is not in the list of contributors (e.g. first-time contributors).
The incompatibility may have been introduced by an earlier PR. In that case merging this
PR should be avoided unless it fixes the current incompatibility.
edstenson
force-pushed
the
review_loop_unwinding
branch
from
c930c9c to
80a8f70
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🚫
This PR failed Diffblue compatibility checks (cbmc commit: 80a8f70).
Build URL: https://travis-ci.com/diffblue/test-gen/builds/93856130
Status will be re-evaluated on next push.
Please contact @peterschrammel, @thk123, or @allredj for support.
Common spurious failures:
- the cbmc commit has disappeared in the mean time (e.g. in a force-push)
- the author is not in the list of contributors (e.g. first-time contributors).
The incompatibility may have been introduced by an earlier PR. In that case merging this
PR should be avoided unless it fixes the current incompatibility.
