codet API #4106
codet API #4106
Conversation
kroening
commented
Feb 6, 2019
kroening
commented
- Each commit message has a non-empty body, explaining why the change was made.
- 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).
- n/a 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.
kroening
requested review from
chrisr-diffblue,
martin-cs,
peterschrammel,
pkesseli,
smowton and
tautschnig
as code owners
This method isn't type safe. It has no users in the code base.
This is an incomplete constructor.
kroening
force-pushed
the
codet_API
branch
3 times, most recently
from
0a9e7aa to
5699c13
Compare
This enables complete construction of a codet object that uses operands.
This prevents construction followed by another assignment.
This will prevent accesses that are not type safe.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🚫
This PR failed Diffblue compatibility checks (cbmc commit: 9a5345e).
Build URL: https://travis-ci.com/diffblue/test-gen/builds/99980171
Status will be re-evaluated on next push.
Please contact @peterschrammel, @thk123, or @allredj for support.
Common spurious failures:
- the cbmc commit has disappeared in the mean time (e.g. in a force-push)
- the author is not in the list of contributors (e.g. first-time contributors).
The incompatibility may have been introduced by an earlier PR. In that case merging this
PR should be avoided unless it fixes the current incompatibility.
|
@peterschrammel @svorenova @thk123 I suspect the last commit in this PR breaks the TG build. Could a bump be created, please? |
|
We have a passing TG bump for this now. 👍 |
|
@antlechner Depending on how far you went with the changes, are those actually mergeable even without the changes in this PR? Might be nice to reduce dependencies/breakage. |
|
@tautschnig I think they should be, I'm currently waiting for it to (hopefully) pass with just the code changes in TG, and without the actual bump. So if you don't mind waiting just a bit longer before merging this PR, that would be great, but as far as I know it's not a requirement yet (we only started doing those code changes in anticipation of a bump without the actual bump very recently I think). I'll post another update here soon. |
|
@tautschnig The TG changes are merged, so this PR can be merged without causing any temporary incompatibilities. |
