Contracts & Harnesses for non_null::sub and non_null::sub_ptr and non_null::offset_from
#93
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
…-std into jimmy_develop
feliperodri
requested changes
Sep 27, 2024
feliperodri
changed the title
non_null::sub and non_null::sub_ptr
feliperodri
previously requested changes
Sep 27, 2024
Jimmycreative
changed the title
non_null::sub and non_null::sub_ptrnon_null::sub and non_null::sub_ptr and non_null::offset_from
carolynzech
reviewed
Nov 13, 2024
zhassan-aws
reviewed
Nov 13, 2024
carolynzech
approved these changes
Nov 22, 2024
Co-authored-by: Carolyn Zech <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Carolyn Zech <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Carolyn Zech <[email protected]>
carolynzech
approved these changes
Nov 22, 2024
zhassan-aws
approved these changes
Nov 26, 2024
Co-authored-by: Zyad Hassan <[email protected]>
auto-merge was automatically disabled
November 26, 2024 21:58
Head branch was pushed to by a user without write access
zhassan-aws
approved these changes
Nov 27, 2024
Yenyun035
pushed a commit
to rajathkotyal/verify-rust-std
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 27, 2024
… `non_null::offset_from` (model-checking#93) Towards model-checking#53 Changes added contract and harness for non_null::sub added contract and harness for non_null::sub_ptr Revalidation To revalidate the verification results, run kani verify-std -Z unstable-options "path/to/library" -Z function-contracts -Z mem-predicates --harness ptr::non_null::verify This will run both harnesses. All default checks should pass: ``` SUMMARY: ** 0 of 1622 failed VERIFICATION:- SUCCESSFUL Verification Time: 0.3814842s SUMMARY: ** 0 of 1780 failed (1 unreachable) VERIFICATION:- SUCCESSFUL Verification Time: 0.44192737s Complete - 2 successfully verified harnesses, 0 failures, 2 total. ``` The proof now only handles the array with a fixed size and uses a random element in the arr for subtraction. The element is i32 type. Is this ok for the current stage? Or maybe we need to consider other types such as i64, etc and maybe change the arr to a bigger size? --------- Co-authored-by: OwO <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Qinyuan Wu <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Carolyn Zech <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Zyad Hassan <[email protected]> Fix invariant return Add to_bytes and to_bytes_with_nul harnesses
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.
Towards #53
Changes
added contract and harness for non_null::sub
added contract and harness for non_null::sub_ptr
Revalidation
To revalidate the verification results, run kani verify-std -Z unstable-options "path/to/library" -Z function-contracts -Z mem-predicates --harness ptr::non_null::verify This will run both harnesses. All default checks should pass:
Clarifying Questions
The proof now only handles the array with a fixed size and uses a random element in the arr for subtraction. The element is i32 type. Is this ok for the current stage? Or maybe we need to consider other types such as i64, etc and maybe change the arr to a bigger size?