-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 42
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
Concretization: Getting concrete RegValue
s from a model
#1207
Merged
langston-barrett
merged 8 commits into
GaloisInc:master
from
langston-barrett:lb/concretize
Jun 6, 2024
Merged
Concretization: Getting concrete RegValue
s from a model
#1207
langston-barrett
merged 8 commits into
GaloisInc:master
from
langston-barrett:lb/concretize
Jun 6, 2024
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
6c3f670
to
8421be4
Compare
What4 has the capacity to turn symbolic values into plausible "concrete" (/"ground") values, given a model from the SMT solver (`GroundEvalFn`). This commit builds on this feature to enable concretizing more complex Crucible types. A possible use-case is to present concrete instances where safety assertions fail, e.g. when symbolically executing the following function: int f(int x, int y) { return x / (y - 2); } it would be nice to say which particular values of `x` and `y` would cause either signed underflow (`y < INT_MIN + 2`) or division by zero (`y == 2`). This particular case could be handled by existing What4 functionality, but the same motivation applies to more complex cases involving Crucible-specific types.
8421be4
to
5235cea
Compare
RyanGlScott
reviewed
Jun 5, 2024
863e5ec
to
aaec2b4
Compare
RyanGlScott
approved these changes
Jun 6, 2024
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.
This looks like a nice utility to have when concretizing Crucible values. We could potentially go even further and offer feature parity with the API in What4.Expr.GroundEval
, but perhaps we should wait until someone requests this before adding it.
aaec2b4
to
eb8c20e
Compare
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.
What4 has the capacity to turn symbolic values into plausible "concrete" (/"ground") values, given a model from the SMT solver (
GroundEvalFn
). This commit builds on this feature to enable concretizing more complex Crucible types.A possible use-case is to present concrete instances where safety assertions fail, e.g. when symbolically executing the following function:
it would be nice to say which particular values of
x
andy
would cause either signed underflow (y < INT_MIN + 2
) or division by zero (y == 2
). This particular case could be handled by existing What4 functionality, but the same motivation applies to more complex cases involving Crucible-specific types.