Skip to content

Store goto_symex::\guard in a single place [blocks: #3619] #4017

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

The static member of a static function will ensure both proper initialisation
and making it available to all users.

This is factored out from #3619 to make it easier to pinpoint what exactly causes trouble with TG. The commit conflict-resolved version of the third one from #3619, which has been approved already.

  • Each commit message has a non-empty body, explaining why the change was made.
  • 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.

@tautschnig tautschnig changed the title Store goto_symex::\guard in a single place Store goto_symex::\guard in a single place [blocks: #3619] Jan 31, 2019
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: 7562b09).
Build URL: https://travis-ci.com/diffblue/test-gen/builds/99328913

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: 9eb1c9b).
Build URL: https://travis-ci.com/diffblue/test-gen/builds/99414751
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.

@kroening
Copy link
Member

kroening commented Feb 1, 2019

symex_targett seems an odd place for that method? It's a container for the output of symex.

@peterschrammel
Copy link
Member

peterschrammel commented Feb 3, 2019

symex_targett seems an odd place for that method? It's a container for the output of symex.

@tautschnig, maybe in a separate file?

@tautschnig
Copy link
Collaborator Author

symex_targett seems an odd place for that method? It's a container for the output of symex.

I should be able to put it in goto_symex_statet I guess. I'll give that a try.

The static member of a static function will ensure both proper initialisation
and making it available to all users.
@tautschnig
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I have moved the declaration to goto_symex_statet.

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: 58bd9ed).
Build URL: https://travis-ci.com/diffblue/test-gen/builds/99574553

@tautschnig tautschnig merged commit 256eeda into diffblue:develop Feb 4, 2019
@tautschnig tautschnig deleted the single-guard branch February 4, 2019 02:33
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.

4 participants