Skip to content

Java object factory: use follow_tag instead of follow #3744

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Java object factory: use follow_tag instead of follow #3744

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

kroening
Copy link
Member

follow_tag(...) is stronger typed than follow(...), which means that some
explict upcasts can be dropped.

  • 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 The feature or user visible behaviour I have added or modified has been documented in the User Guide in doc/cprover-manual/
  • 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.
  • n/a White-space or formatting changes outside the feature-related changed lines are in commits of their own.

@smowton
Copy link
Contributor

smowton commented Jan 10, 2019

Similar to the other PR it seems hazardous to switch from to_struct(follow(...)), which tolerates struct and anything that resolves to one, to follow_tag(to_struct_tag(...)), which only tolerates the case where resolution is necessary? How about introducing a utility method instead that takes either struct or struct_tag and yields struct?

@thk123
Copy link
Contributor

thk123 commented Jan 11, 2019

What is meant by:

follow_tag(...) is stronger typed than follow(...)

Stronger in what sense?

@kroening kroening force-pushed the java_bytecode_follow_tag branch from 5c8512f to 2c5a408 Compare February 3, 2019 19:12
@tautschnig tautschnig mentioned this pull request Feb 8, 2019
Merged
Java object factory: use follow_tag instead of follow
5431604 
follow_tag(...) is stronger typed than follow(...), which means that some
explict upcasts can be dropped.
@kroening kroening force-pushed the java_bytecode_follow_tag branch from 2c5a408 to 5431604 Compare February 16, 2019 16:36
@kroening kroening closed this Aug 26, 2019
@kroening kroening deleted the java_bytecode_follow_tag branch August 26, 2019 06:44
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@cesaro cesaro Awaiting requested review from cesaro

@cristina-david cristina-david Awaiting requested review from cristina-david

@NathanJPhillips NathanJPhillips Awaiting requested review from NathanJPhillips

@peterschrammel peterschrammel Awaiting requested review from peterschrammel peterschrammel is a code owner

@pkesseli pkesseli Awaiting requested review from pkesseli

@smowton smowton Awaiting requested review from smowton

@thk123 thk123 Awaiting requested review from thk123

Assignees

@kroening kroening

Labels
cleanup Java Front End
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@kroening @smowton @thk123