Skip to content

Simplify byte_extract(byte_update(...)) without overlap #7251

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 24, 2022

Conversation

tautschnig
Copy link
Collaborator

When extracting bytes not affected by an inner update the extract can directly refer to the object subject to the update.

  • 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.

When extracting bytes not affected by an inner update the extract can
directly refer to the object subject to the update.
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 19, 2022

Codecov Report

Base: 77.99% // Head: 78.00% // Increases project coverage by +0.00% 🎉

Coverage data is based on head (adee8c6) compared to base (9d51ea2).
Patch coverage: 92.42% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##           develop    #7251    +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage    77.99%   78.00%            
=========================================
  Files         1619     1621     +2     
  Lines       187194   187297   +103     
=========================================
+ Hits        146007   146102    +95     
- Misses       41187    41195     +8     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
src/cprover/console.cpp 29.06% <0.00%> (-2.19%) ⬇️
src/cprover/console.h 66.66% <ø> (ø)
src/cprover/cprover_parse_options.cpp 56.58% <0.00%> (ø)
src/goto-programs/goto_trace.cpp 81.41% <ø> (ø)
unit/util/expr_cast/expr_cast.cpp 100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/solvers/flattening/boolbv_byte_extract.cpp 69.73% <75.00%> (-0.40%) ⬇️
src/cprover/solver_progress.cpp 80.00% <80.00%> (ø)
src/util/pointer_offset_size.cpp 92.72% <83.72%> (-0.12%) ⬇️
src/util/simplify_expr.cpp 83.90% <92.85%> (+0.12%) ⬆️
...de/java_trace_validation/java_trace_validation.cpp 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
... and 18 more

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

Copy link
Member

@peterschrammel peterschrammel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

A test would be good.

@peterschrammel peterschrammel removed their assignment Oct 24, 2022
@tautschnig
Copy link
Collaborator Author

A test would be good.

Same here: I believe union field sensitivity will take care of this.

@tautschnig tautschnig merged commit d62f644 into diffblue:develop Oct 24, 2022
@tautschnig tautschnig deleted the feature/simp-extract-update branch October 24, 2022 19:47
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.

3 participants