Skip to content

Fix constant propagator merge operator #1057

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

Conversation

peterschrammel
Copy link
Member

@peterschrammel peterschrammel commented Jun 24, 2017

The last commit cleans up the linting issues. Recommended to review the commits separately.

Do not merge: more fixes to come.

Previously there were two loops which have been consolidated,
which caused the value not being set to top when two constants
clash. Also, a spurious break statement caused an incomplete
merge leading to erroneous substitutions.
Copy link
Collaborator

@tautschnig tautschnig left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thus far looks good to me; but may I suggest to place "Regression test for constant propagator merge bug" with or after the commit fixing it? That would enable "git bisect" without spurious failures.

@peterschrammel
Copy link
Member Author

Closing for now. I'll revisit these fixes once #966 (which heavily modifies the constant propagator) has been merged.

@tautschnig
Copy link
Collaborator

Could the regression test provided in this PR be added to #966 asap, please?

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants