Skip to content

SSA steps: don't guess the property id, set it during construction #6699

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
Jan 11, 2023

Conversation

tautschnig
Copy link
Collaborator

@tautschnig tautschnig commented Feb 26, 2022

There is no need for a method that tries to reverse engineer the
property id of an assertion: we just store the id in an SSA step when
building that step.

Keeping this as Draft until the depended-on PRs (the first three commits) have been merged.

  • 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.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 20, 2022

Codecov Report

Base: 78.48% // Head: 78.34% // Decreases project coverage by -0.14% ⚠️

Coverage data is based on head (d024a4b) compared to base (7a9398d).
Patch coverage: 100.00% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

❗ Current head d024a4b differs from pull request most recent head 5c4503f. Consider uploading reports for the commit 5c4503f to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #6699      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    78.48%   78.34%   -0.15%     
===========================================
  Files         1663     1645      -18     
  Lines       191151   190355     -796     
===========================================
- Hits        150032   149130     -902     
- Misses       41119    41225     +106     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
src/goto-symex/goto_symex.h 86.66% <ø> (ø)
src/goto-symex/ssa_step.h 100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/goto-symex/symex_target.h 100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/goto-symex/symex_target_equation.h 100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/goto-checker/bmc_util.cpp 90.40% <100.00%> (ø)
src/goto-checker/goto_symex_fault_localizer.cpp 83.05% <100.00%> (ø)
src/goto-checker/goto_symex_property_decider.cpp 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/goto-symex/build_goto_trace.cpp 87.86% <100.00%> (ø)
src/goto-symex/ssa_step.cpp 79.56% <100.00%> (-3.55%) ⬇️
src/goto-symex/symex_function_call.cpp 95.67% <100.00%> (+0.06%) ⬆️
... and 325 more

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

@tautschnig tautschnig force-pushed the cleanup/partial-loops branch from 2b4d4b5 to d024a4b Compare November 20, 2022 21:34
@peterschrammel peterschrammel removed their assignment Jan 11, 2023
There is no need for a method that tries to reverse engineer the
property id of an assertion: we just store the id in an SSA step when
building that step.
@tautschnig tautschnig force-pushed the cleanup/partial-loops branch from d024a4b to 5c4503f Compare January 11, 2023 10:33
@tautschnig tautschnig assigned tautschnig and unassigned kroening Jan 11, 2023
@tautschnig tautschnig merged commit 16daaa9 into diffblue:develop Jan 11, 2023
@tautschnig tautschnig deleted the cleanup/partial-loops branch January 11, 2023 12:42
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