[Draft] Refactor more simplify_plus to take plus_exprt #2946
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
hannes-steffenhagen-diffblue
requested review from
kroening,
peterschrammel,
pkesseli,
smowton and
tautschnig
as code owners
src/util/simplify_expr.cpp
Outdated
| expr.operands().size() == 1, | ||
| "typecasts must have exactly one argument"); | ||
| auto const& typecast_expr = to_typecast_expr(expr); | ||
| const typet &op_type=ns.follow(typecast_expr.op().type()); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
clang-format (several occurrences)
|
|
||
| if(!to_struct_type(value_ptr_type). | ||
| has_component(component_name)) | ||
| const struct_typet &value_ptr_struct_type=to_struct_type(value_ptr_type); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The commit message could be a bit more specific regarding the kind of clean-ups this commit is doing.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry, that commit is not really a part of this PR and is just included because this depends on some of the changes made in a prior PR
src/util/simplify_expr_int.cpp
Outdated
| return true; | ||
|
|
||
| bool bit=(id2string(value)[width-integer2size_t(i)-1]=='1'); | ||
| bool bit = |
src/util/simplify_expr_int.cpp
Outdated
| @@ -864,20 +864,15 @@ bool simplify_exprt::simplify_extractbit(exprt &expr) | |||
| if(!is_bitvector_type(src_type)) | |||
| return true; | |||
|
|
|||
| std::size_t src_bit_width = to_bitvector_type(src_type).get_width(); | |||
| const std::size_t src_bit_width = to_bitvector_type(src_type).get_width(); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A more descriptive commit message would be appreciated.
src/util/simplify_expr_int.cpp
Outdated
| @@ -887,12 +882,15 @@ bool simplify_exprt::simplify_extractbit(exprt &expr) | |||
| const irep_idt &src_value = | |||
| to_constant_expr(extractbit_expr.src()).get_value(); | |||
|
|
|||
| if(src_value.size() != src_bit_width) | |||
|
|
|||
| std::string src_value_as_string=id2string(src_value); | |||
5 tasks
kroening
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 30, 2019
This is follow-up on #2939 and #2946, and the biggest change to the simplifier since its existence. It attempts to make the implementation of individual simplification steps more type safe, as opposed to using exprt. The alternative considered was to return optionalt<exprt>, which has the disadvantage that it doesn't "chain", i.e., given two transformations f and g one cannot write f(g(...)).
kroening
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 3, 2019
This is follow-up on #2939 and #2946, and the biggest change to the simplifier since its existence. It attempts to make the implementation of individual simplification steps more type safe, as opposed to using exprt. The alternative considered was to return optionalt<exprt>, which has the disadvantage that it doesn't "chain", i.e., given two transformations f and g one cannot write f(g(...)).
kroening
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 5, 2019
This is follow-up on #2939 and #2946, and the biggest change to the simplifier since its existence. It attempts to make the implementation of individual simplification steps more type safe, as opposed to using exprt. The alternative considered was to return optionalt<exprt>, which has the disadvantage that it doesn't "chain", i.e., given two transformations f and g one cannot write f(g(...)).
angelhof
pushed a commit
to angelhof/cbmc
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 17, 2019
This is follow-up on diffblue#2939 and diffblue#2946, and the biggest change to the simplifier since its existence. It attempts to make the implementation of individual simplification steps more type safe, as opposed to using exprt. The alternative considered was to return optionalt<exprt>, which has the disadvantage that it doesn't "chain", i.e., given two transformations f and g one cannot write f(g(...)).
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.
Based on #2939
Does the same sort of refactoring for plus_exprt. Because this depends on multiple PRs that each are still subject to change this should be considered a draft that's not ready to be merged.
Only 97cd898 is really new in this PR, the others are from work-in-progress PRs. Please disregard them.