Skip to content

Remove symbol table passes. #1932

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
tedinski merged 2 commits into from
Nov 28, 2022
Merged

Remove symbol table passes. #1932

tedinski merged 2 commits into from
Nov 28, 2022

Conversation

@celinval
Copy link
Contributor

@celinval celinval commented Nov 23, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Description of changes:

This code hasn't been used since at least the creation of kani-driver, and I don't think we have any plans to use it in the near future. We might as well delete this since it's likely broken by now (I think it was already broken before kani-driver).

Resolved issues:

Resolves #1384

This should also close the following opened issues related to --gen-c-runnable

Closes #445
Closes #441
Closes #439

Related RFC:

Call-outs:

Any objections to removing this code??? @danielsn

Testing:

  • How is this change tested? None. There was no test coverage for this.

  • Is this a refactor change?

Checklist

  • Each commit message has a non-empty body, explaining why the change was made
  • Methods or procedures are documented
  • Regression or unit tests are included, or existing tests cover the modified code
  • My PR is restricted to a single feature or bugfix

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 and MIT licenses.

@celinval
Remove symbol table passes.
adfd11f 
This code hasn't been used since at least the creation of `kani-driver`.
We might as well delete this.
@celinval celinval requested a review from a team as a code owner November 23, 2022 01:30
adpaco-aws
adpaco-aws reviewed Nov 23, 2022
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@adpaco-aws adpaco-aws left a comment •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm in favor of removing this code because it complicates development when doing changes to our CProver API and it isn't used.

However, I don't see how this would resolve #444 . My understanding is that we're generating non-standard code for indexing SIMD vector components, as it's shown in --gen-c views, and the transformer just handles this case in a particular way.

@celinval
Copy link
Contributor Author

celinval commented Nov 23, 2022

I'm in favor of removing this code because it complicates development when doing changes to our CProver API and it isn't used.

However, I don't see how this would resolve #444 . My understanding is that we're generating non-standard code for indexing SIMD vector components, as it's shown in --gen-c views, and the transformer just handles this case in a particular way.

Sorry, it wasn't clear to me from the issue description or comments. I'll post your comment there too.

@celinval
Copy link
Contributor Author

celinval commented Nov 26, 2022

Actually, I read the #444 thread again and it actually makes sense. Sorry about it.

@adpaco-aws
Copy link
Contributor

adpaco-aws commented Nov 28, 2022

Actually, I read the #444 thread again and it actually makes sense. Sorry about it.

No problem. Please wait for another review before merging.

tedinski
tedinski approved these changes Nov 28, 2022
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@tedinski tedinski left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think I agree with this as well. Maybe @danielsn ?

@danielsn
Copy link
Contributor

danielsn commented Nov 28, 2022

Agreed. If we need this code, we can recreate it. Having unused code around adds toil without giving benifit.

@tedinski tedinski merged commit fc80db6 into model-checking:main Nov 28, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

2 more reviewers

@tedinski tedinski tedinski approved these changes

@adpaco-aws adpaco-aws adpaco-aws approved these changes

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

4 participants

@celinval @adpaco-aws @danielsn @tedinski