Support specifying ProofScripts during x86 verification #753
Conversation
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
brianhuffman
approved these changes
Jun 19, 2020
| , "\nCounterexample: " <> show ex | ||
| ] | ||
| `catch` \(X86Error e) -> fail $ "Failure, error: " <> e | ||
| forM_ (zip [0..] gs) $ \(n, g) -> do |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is it possible to extract this and use it both here and in verifyObligations in SAWScript.Crucible.LLVM.Builtins?
RyanGlScott
added
the
subsystem: x86
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Previously, x86 verification always used Z3 (via SBV). This commit adds an additional
ProofScript SatResultargument tocrucible_llvm_verify_x86, matching the interface tocrucible_llvm_verify.This interface change will break the BIKE and SIKE proofs. I've pushed the fix to the
x86-tacticsbranch of GaloisInc/s2n.