Skip to content

Add --no-simplify-phi option #7391

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

Draft
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

peterschrammel
Copy link
Member

Allow disabling the simplification of phi functions as this is very expensive operation.

Using this option is not recommended in general, but in certain cases it has been observed to cut symex time in half without noticeable influence on SAT solving time.

Also removes the orphaned --no-simplify-if option in a separate commit.

  • 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.
  • [no] 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).
  • [no] My commit message includes data points confirming performance improvements (if claimed).
  • [almost] 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.

Allow disabling the simplification of phi functions
as this is very expensive operation.

Using this option is not recommended in general,
but in certain cases it may cut symex time in half
without noticeable influence on SAT solving time.
Used in CBMC and JBMC.
@tautschnig
Copy link
Collaborator

I wonder whether the removal of no-simplify-if should be a PR of its own and be tagged "Version 6" -- or at least that's what I thought when doing #6919 (well, I should have created that PR back then...).

@tautschnig
Copy link
Collaborator

tautschnig commented Nov 28, 2022

Also, can those costly benchmarks be named/shared so that we can consider ways to improve the simplifier performance instead? Edit: I do wonder whether #6118 might make some difference in terms of performance.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants