Skip to content

Flattening of ID_nondet_symbol for unbounded arrays [blocks: #3619] #4016

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
Feb 4, 2019

Conversation

tautschnig
Copy link
Collaborator

@tautschnig tautschnig commented Jan 31, 2019

symbol_exprt and nondet_symbol_exprt are to be treated the same when in comes to
the back-end: they both introduce an uninterpreted, nullary function. Note the
difference at the level of symbolic execution/programs, where the value of
symbols may change (while the value of nondet_symbol_exprts cannot).

This is factored out from #3619 to make it easier to pinpoint what exactly causes trouble with TG. The commit is exactly the same as the first one from #3619, which has been approved already.

  • 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.

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: 915bb93).
Build URL: https://travis-ci.com/diffblue/test-gen/builds/99326800

@tautschnig
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Marking do-not-merge until explicitly approved by @romainbrenguier or anyone else via a TG test run.

Copy link
Contributor

@smowton smowton left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Approving as part of an approved PR

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.

🚫
This PR failed Diffblue compatibility checks (cbmc commit: e2a7181).
Build URL: https://travis-ci.com/diffblue/test-gen/builds/99415339
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.

@tautschnig
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@romainbrenguier confirmed that this passes TG tests.

symbol_exprt and nondet_symbol_exprt are to be treated the same when in comes to
the back-end: they both introduce an uninterpreted, nullary function. Note the
difference at the level of symbolic execution/programs, where the value of
symbols may change (while the value of nondet_symbol_exprts cannot).
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: 909a29e).
Build URL: https://travis-ci.com/diffblue/test-gen/builds/99575614

@tautschnig tautschnig merged commit 2a33c04 into diffblue:develop Feb 4, 2019
@tautschnig tautschnig deleted the nondet-flattening branch February 4, 2019 03:05
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants