Skip to content
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

Contracts/DFCC: split conjunctions in loop invariants #8458

Merged

Conversation

tautschnig
Copy link
Collaborator

Emitting one assertion (and assumption) per conjunct simplifies debugging when proving a loop invariant fails. It also appears to improve performance when using Bitwuzla, taking one example from more than 30 minutes down to 8 seconds. On the same example, performance using Z3 was not substantially different.

  • 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).
  • 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.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 17, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 80.00000% with 4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 78.35%. Comparing base (f68cf8c) to head (eb5466d).
Report is 2 commits behind head on develop.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
.../contracts/dynamic-frames/dfcc_instrument_loop.cpp 80.00% 4 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #8458      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    78.37%   78.35%   -0.03%     
===========================================
  Files         1726     1726              
  Lines       188663   188733      +70     
  Branches     18265    18268       +3     
===========================================
+ Hits        147864   147874      +10     
- Misses       40799    40859      +60     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@feliperodri feliperodri added the Code Contracts Function and loop contracts label Sep 17, 2024
Emitting one assertion (and assumption) per conjunct simplifies
debugging when proving a loop invariant fails. It also appears to
improve performance when using Bitwuzla, taking one example from more
than 30 minutes down to 8 seconds. On the same example, performance
using Z3 was not substantially different.
@tautschnig tautschnig force-pushed the loop-invariants-conjunction-splitting branch from b47bb51 to eb5466d Compare September 17, 2024 18:42
@tautschnig tautschnig merged commit d87b506 into diffblue:develop Sep 17, 2024
39 of 40 checks passed
@tautschnig tautschnig deleted the loop-invariants-conjunction-splitting branch September 17, 2024 21:04
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Code Contracts Function and loop contracts
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants