Skip to content

byte_extract lowering: lower newly introduced byte_extract expressions [depends-on: #4061, blocks: #2068] #4062

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 7, 2019

Conversation

tautschnig
Copy link
Collaborator

Only the second commit is new, the first one is #4061.

  • 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

@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.

Suspect you need the BE version too, otherwise lgtm

@@ -154,8 +154,7 @@ SCENARIO("byte_extract_lowering", "[core][solvers][lowering][byte_extract]")
const exprt lower_be = lower_byte_extract(be, ns);
const exprt lower_be_s = simplify_expr(lower_be, ns);

// TODO: does not currently hold
// REQUIRE(!has_subexpr(lower_be, ID_byte_extract_little_endian));
REQUIRE(!has_subexpr(lower_be, ID_byte_extract_little_endian));
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Presumably also big_endian?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ah, indeed, actually that should be fixed in the first commit (which is #4061).

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done.

@tautschnig tautschnig force-pushed the byte-op-1 branch 2 times, most recently from f6e617d to 36385be Compare February 5, 2019 22:17
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: 36385be).
Build URL: https://travis-ci.com/diffblue/test-gen/builds/99858855

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: bae5803).
Build URL: https://travis-ci.com/diffblue/test-gen/builds/100049738

byte_extract lowering must not return any further byte_extract expressions.
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: 1f94bce).
Build URL: https://travis-ci.com/diffblue/test-gen/builds/100077409

@tautschnig tautschnig merged commit 2df39b1 into diffblue:develop Feb 7, 2019
@tautschnig tautschnig deleted the byte-op-1 branch February 7, 2019 12:56
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.

3 participants