Skip to content

Separate header file for goto-instruction codet types #6386

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 8, 2021

Conversation

kroening
Copy link
Member

@kroening kroening commented Oct 7, 2021

  • 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).
  • 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.

@kroening kroening changed the title Goto instruction code Separate header file for goto-instruction codet types Oct 7, 2021
@kroening kroening force-pushed the goto_instruction_code branch from 4fb8571 to 025bde4 Compare October 7, 2021 16:06
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 7, 2021

Codecov Report

Merging #6386 (ea13baf) into develop (998d141) will increase coverage by 0.04%.
The diff coverage is 66.66%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #6386      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    75.93%   75.97%   +0.04%     
===========================================
  Files         1518     1523       +5     
  Lines       164040   164194     +154     
===========================================
+ Hits        124565   124750     +185     
+ Misses       39475    39444      -31     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
...mc/src/java_bytecode/character_refine_preprocess.h 100.00% <ø> (ø)
jbmc/src/java_bytecode/code_with_references.cpp 82.35% <ø> (ø)
...java_bytecode/create_array_with_type_intrinsic.cpp 97.67% <ø> (ø)
...bmc/src/java_bytecode/java_bytecode_instrument.cpp 98.22% <ø> (ø)
...src/java_bytecode/java_bytecode_typecheck_code.cpp 100.00% <ø> (ø)
jbmc/src/java_bytecode/lift_clinit_calls.cpp 100.00% <ø> (ø)
.../unit/java-testing-utils/require_goto_statements.h 20.00% <ø> (ø)
...java_static_initializers/assignments_from_json.cpp 98.28% <ø> (ø)
...a_static_initializers/java_static_initializers.cpp 100.00% <ø> (ø)
...rc/ansi-c/c_typecheck_gcc_polymorphic_builtins.cpp 76.58% <ø> (ø)
... and 39 more

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update d3ee1ab...ea13baf. Read the comment docs.

@tautschnig
Copy link
Collaborator

I'm happy with this, but I'd first like to understand how 9a71920 came about? Did we have PRs crossing in the air?

@kroening
Copy link
Member Author

kroening commented Oct 8, 2021

I'm happy with this, but I'd first like to understand how 9a71920 came about? Did we have PRs crossing in the air?

Yes.

The codet types are used both at the source level (C/C++/Java) and in goto-programs,
which is confusing.

This commit moves those types that are exclusive to goto-program
instructions into a separate header file.  It is envisaged that this header
file moves to goto-programs/ eventually.
@kroening kroening force-pushed the goto_instruction_code branch from 025bde4 to ea13baf Compare October 8, 2021 16:54
@kroening kroening merged commit a80fe1f into develop Oct 8, 2021
@kroening kroening deleted the goto_instruction_code branch October 8, 2021 18:00
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants