Rename _start to __CPROVER_start #721
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
tautschnig
force-pushed
the
rename-_start
branch
from
a8c3e0b to
9845351
Compare
| @@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ bool contains(const std::string &haystack, const std::string &needle) | |||
|
|
|||
| bool handle_start(std::string &source, const std::string &line) | |||
| { | |||
| if ("void _start(void)" != line) return false; | |||
| if ("void __CPROVER_start(void)" != line) return false; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ jsa_source_providert::jsa_source_providert(jsa_symex_learnt &lcfg) : | |||
| { | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| #define START_METHOD_PREFIX "void _start" | |||
| #define START_METHOD_PREFIX "void __CPROVER_start" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does it make sense to put this into util/prefix.h to really have it in a single place?
|
-#define START_METHOD_PREFIX "void _start"
+#define START_METHOD_PREFIX "void __CPROVER_start"
Does it make sense to put this into util/prefix.h to really have it in a single place?
Perhaps as part of a general clean up of working out which variables,
functions, locations, etc. are internal?
|
tautschnig
force-pushed
the
rename-_start
branch
2 times, most recently
from
5a4764d to
139f4cb
Compare
|
There now really is just one point where the name is generated, which is also used from cegis. |
The previous regression test may fail dependent on the platform.
While identifiers starting with _ are reserved according to the C standard, people nevertheless use them. Using __CPROVER_start will make collisions less likely. Includes cleanup such that there is exactly one point where this name is spelled out.
tautschnig
force-pushed
the
rename-_start
branch
from
139f4cb to
9c68c07
Compare
|
Just observing that we have 5 instances of "__CPROVER_initialize" and 3 instances of CPROVER_PREFIX "initialize" in the code. I'd prefer the latter... |
|
I've created #735 to track cleanup of other uses of |
peterschrammel
approved these changes
Mar 30, 2017
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
While identifiers starting with _ (or __ ?) are reserved according to the C standard,
people nevertheless use them. Using __CPROVER_start will make collisions less
likely.
Includes cleanup so that, outside cegis, there is exactly one point where this
name is spelled out.