-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 63
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
Heapster Widening and Implication Prover Improvements #1796
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
e9aaa02
enhanced widening so that memblock permissions with eqsh shapes can b…
73afe5a
updated widening so it unfolds conjunctive permissions when widening …
9a67823
updated recombinePerm to handle more cases with named permissions
7d456f8
Merge branch 'master' into heapster/widening-eqsh
5d8d7e9
fixed the name of remLLVMBlockPermRange, and added some comments to it
a1cbe0e
Merge branch 'master' into heapster/widening-eqsh
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nit pick: combine the two
llvmBlockShape -> PExpr_EqShape ...
cases:Aside from making this slightly more readable, this should be a little easier for GHC's pattern-match coverage checker to handle.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I see what you mean, that it's weird to use a view pattern with a record accessor. I'll fix that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Wait, except I guess that's not what you were suggesting. I guess you were suggesting I use an
otherwise
branch of the pattern-match. That's not actually quite correct, because that would only match when the second argument toPExpr_EqShape
is of the formPExpr_Var b
, whereas the current version doesn't match on that argument at all in this case. TBF,PExpr_Var b
is the onlyPermExpr
expression that can match at that particular type.Maybe this is all bikeshedding, because there already is a catch-all case at the end of the function?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah, quite right. Indeed, you would need to move the match on
PExpr_Var
into a pattern guard to preserve the existing semantics of this function:I'll let you make the call on whether the old or new code is more readable.