Bertie Lax Typechecking #107
Merged
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
franziskuskiefer
approved these changes
Apr 3, 2024
This was referenced Apr 4, 2024
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR addresses issue #86.
It requires some changes to the source code to generate better F* code.
In particular, we work around some issues around the use of question-marks until they are resolved in hax (see cryspen/hax#15)
It also requires some hand-edits to the generated F*, to add
let recfor recursive functions, and to add a trait implementation for mutableBytesType of change
Motivation and Context
This is part of the formal verification of Bertie.
Changes
Checklist
Fixes #