cbmc/r_w_ok6/test.desc works with SMT2

[kroening]

The test works with SMT2.

• 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).
• n/a 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]

Codecov Report

Base: 78.28% // Head: 78.28% // Decreases project coverage by -0.00% ⚠️

Coverage data is based on head (5963181) compared to base (d7dd40a).
Patch coverage: 100.00% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #7336      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    78.28%   78.28%   -0.01%     
===========================================
  Files         1642     1642              
  Lines       189995   190002       +7     
===========================================
+ Hits        148737   148739       +2     
- Misses       41258    41263       +5     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/solvers/flattening/boolbv_equality.cpp	63.63% <ø> (ø)
src/solvers/lowering/byte_operators.cpp	92.71% <ø> (-0.06%)	⬇️
src/util/byte_operators.h	92.72% <ø> (ø)
src/util/byte_operators.cpp	93.10% <100.00%> (+3.10%)	⬆️
src/cprover/propagate.cpp	65.85% <0.00%> (-8.44%)	⬇️

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]

Please also remove lines 346 and 347 from .github/workflows/pull-request-checks.yaml.

[NlightNFotis]

Note to reviewers: The CI checks that are failing here are networking issues in some checks that are inconsequential for this kind of change.

For all intends and purposes, this can be thought of as passing CI (at least as of the time of writing of this comment).