Skip to content

simplify_function_application: do not assume that a symbol always has a value #4068

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

Conversation

tautschnig
Copy link
Collaborator

The possible arrays we might see include dynamic objects, which are symbols, but
need not have an initial value. While at it, actually implement a proper prefix
check rather than limiting this to the same length. And then do take into
account the offset, which was previously missing as well.

This is exercised by several startsWith regression tests, but the initial problem was only triggered when enabling further constant propagation.

  • 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.

Could you add 0 conditions remaining or whatever it is we say when symex has solved the problem to those startsWith tests?

… a value

The possible arrays we might see include dynamic objects, which are symbols, but
need not have an initial value. While at it, actually implement a proper prefix
check rather than limiting this to the same length. And then do take into
account the offset, which was previously missing as well.
@tautschnig tautschnig force-pushed the fix-simplify_function_application branch from 00f9de3 to 79c76a7 Compare February 4, 2019 14:31
@tautschnig
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Could you add 0 conditions remaining or whatever it is we say when symex has solved the problem to those startsWith tests?

All of them seem to be crafted such that there is at least one failing assertion, which does require the use of SAT solver. I have now extended the test that @JohnDumbell had added for this initial version of this simplifier pass.

@tautschnig tautschnig assigned tautschnig and unassigned smowton Feb 4, 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.

🚫
This PR failed Diffblue compatibility checks (cbmc commit: 00f9de3).
Build URL: https://travis-ci.com/diffblue/test-gen/builds/99643033
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.

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: 79c76a7).
Build URL: https://travis-ci.com/diffblue/test-gen/builds/99646614

@tautschnig tautschnig merged commit 23290f4 into diffblue:develop Feb 4, 2019
@tautschnig tautschnig deleted the fix-simplify_function_application branch February 4, 2019 16:03
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.

3 participants