Assertion expressions #690
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
Add Program.getSpecificationType() Add Program.hasReachabilitySpecification() Add Program.setSpecification(SpecificationType,AbstractAssert) Remove Program.setSpecification(AbstractAssert) Remove AbstractAssert.getType() Remove AbstractAssert.isSafetySpec() Remove AbstractAssert.setType(String) Remove AbstractAssert.toStringWithType() Add ProgramBuilder.setAssertExists(AbstractAssert) Add ProgramBuilder.setAssertForall(AbstractAssert) Add ProgramBuilder.setAssertNotExists(AbstractAssert) Remove ProgramBuilder.setAssert(AbstractAssert) Replace AssertionHelper.parseAssertion(ProgramBuilder,String)
Add EncodingContext.encodeFinalExpressionAsBoolean(Expression)
…RuleContext,ParserRuleContext) Remove AssertionHelper
| private String name; | ||
| private AbstractAssert spec; | ||
| private AbstractAssert filterSpec; // Acts like "assume" statements, filtering out executions | ||
| private SpecificationType specificationType = SpecificationType.ASSERT; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do I understand correctly that by default we assume the specification type is inline assertions and all litmus parsers are supposed to set this to something different?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It seems so. I kinda dislike the distinction between forall and assert, since the latter is conceptually an instance of the former. But I guess it still is an improvement of what we had before.
ThomasHaas
reviewed
Jun 8, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The output format of the condition has regressed:
- The output does not attach Tid prefixes, resulting in specs that look like
(X == 4) && (X == 5)but actually mean(0:X == 4) && (1:X == 5). - A sequence of conditions
A && B && Cis now printed with parenthesis for all subexpressions:((A && B) && C)which causes a lot visual overhead for many tests.
Comparison:
// Previously:
Condition exists (ok==bv64(1) && x==bv64(1) && y==bv64(1) && z==bv64(2) && 0:bv64 X2==bv64(0) && 0:bv64 X6==bv64(0) && 1:bv64 X1==bv64(1) && 1:bv64 X5==bv64(0) && 2:bv64 X2==bv64(1) && 2:bv64 X5==bv64(0))
// Now (notice the double occurence of X5):
Condition EXISTS ((((((((((ok == bv64(1)) && (x == bv64(1))) && (y == bv64(1))) && (z == bv64(2))) && (bv64 X2 == bv64(0))) && (bv64 X6 == bv64(0))) && (bv64 X1 == bv64(1))) && (bv64 X5 == bv64(0))) && (bv64 X2 == bv64(1))) && (bv64 X5 == bv64(0)))
I think we need a smart printer for expressions that avoids parenthesis for nested associative operations and prints function ids in front of registers (configurable).
…ssertion-expressions
ThomasHaas
reviewed
Jun 17, 2024
dartagnan/src/main/java/com/dat3m/dartagnan/expression/ExpressionPrinter.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
dartagnan/src/main/java/com/dat3m/dartagnan/expression/ExpressionPrinter.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
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 replaces
AbstractAssertwithExpression. It primarily removes duplicated code. It also changes the handling of user assertions:PropertyEncodernow completely controls their encoding (as opposed toModelCheckerhaving to inject them into the spec field first).