Skip to content

Add function for reverting formula slicing #4064

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
Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 4, 2019
Merged

Add function for reverting formula slicing #4064

merged 1 commit into from
Feb 4, 2019

Conversation

peterschrammel
Copy link
Member

This functionality is necessary to use slicing of symex_target_equationt
in combination with incremental unwinding.

  • 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.
  • 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).
  • 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.

tautschnig
tautschnig approved these changes Feb 4, 2019
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Collaborator

@tautschnig tautschnig left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The change looks rather risk-free, but I don't really understand the commit message (the text doesn't parse for me, and it doesn't explain at all why slicing and incremental unwinding are in conflict).

@peterschrammel
Add function for reverting formula slicing
be9135c 
This functionality is necessary to use slicing
of symex_target_equationt in combination with incremental
unwinding. Assertions in future unwindings may depend
on steps that have been sliced away in previous
unwindings. Thus, we have to undo and recompute the slice.
@peterschrammel
Copy link
Member Author

I don't really understand the commit message

Expanded the explanation.

allredj
allredj reviewed Feb 4, 2019
View reviewed changes
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: be9135c).
Build URL: https://travis-ci.com/diffblue/test-gen/builds/99657806

@tautschnig tautschnig merged commit d54feeb into diffblue:develop Feb 4, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@allredj allredj allredj left review comments

@tautschnig tautschnig tautschnig approved these changes

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

Assignees

@peterschrammel peterschrammel

Labels
Symbolic Execution
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@peterschrammel @tautschnig @allredj