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

Minimize our macro definitions for CBMC proofs #706

Closed
feliperodri opened this issue Oct 6, 2020 · 1 comment
Closed

Minimize our macro definitions for CBMC proofs #706

feliperodri opened this issue Oct 6, 2020 · 1 comment
Assignees
Labels
cbmc Anything related to CBMC proofs. needs-review This issue or pull request needs review from a core team member. p3 This is a minor priority issue

Comments

@feliperodri
Copy link
Contributor

In some proofs we use ASSUME_VALID_MEMORY_COUNT to properly allocate a valid memory in proof harnesses.
It's nice to have a new macro that does the malloc + the nullness etc. checks, but we are introducing yet another macro and would have to remember to use it consistently across the preconditions and harness assumptions etc.
We should take a pass and minimize our macro definitions at some point. Otherwise, let's make consistently.

@feliperodri feliperodri added the cbmc Anything related to CBMC proofs. label Oct 6, 2020
@feliperodri feliperodri self-assigned this Oct 6, 2020
@yasminetalby yasminetalby added the p3 This is a minor priority issue label Jun 25, 2023
@jmklix jmklix added the needs-review This issue or pull request needs review from a core team member. label Sep 21, 2023
@jmklix
Copy link
Member

jmklix commented Sep 21, 2023

Closing as not a priority for now. Please let us know if this is still important

@jmklix jmklix closed this as completed Sep 21, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
cbmc Anything related to CBMC proofs. needs-review This issue or pull request needs review from a core team member. p3 This is a minor priority issue
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants