Skip to content

functions lowering does not need prop_convt #4529

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
Apr 13, 2019

Conversation

kroening
Copy link
Member

The functions lowering code does not make use of any features of prop_convt,
and thus, can use the less specific parent interface.

  • 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.

The functions lowering code does not make use of any features of prop_convt,
and thus, can use the less specific parent interface.
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: 309d71e).
Build URL: https://travis-ci.com/diffblue/test-gen/builds/108214161

@tautschnig tautschnig merged commit 53765c7 into develop Apr 13, 2019
@tautschnig tautschnig deleted the functions_lowering_prop_convt branch April 13, 2019 10:33
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.

3 participants