Open
Conversation
Collaborator
|
An alternative solution would be to have a proper VC representation: \forall x:int, pred -> another_vc | final_cond. This could just be a list of predicates, where the last one is the conclusion. But the ordering of the binders allows to know exactly what you can and cannot do. For instance, you cannot replace inner bindings in outside expressions, but the other way you can. |
This file contains hidden or 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
This PR fixes #176, where a simple assignment
x = x + 1would cause a false negative in the verification.Root Cause
In the
joinPredicatesmethod, creating a newVCImplicationwithVariable.getRefinement()added the constraintx == lastInstanceto connect the variable with its current value. However, when the assignment is self-referential (e.g.,x = x + 1), it introduced a contradictory cycle in the SMT premises. Then, Z3 couldn't find a counterexample, therefore concluding the verification was correct.Solution
Added two helper methods to detect and prevent these cycles:
Then, when a cycle is detected, we use
getMainRefinement()instead ofgetRefinement().