ProVerif backend: Translation of fns to letfuns
#385
Merged
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
W95Psp
requested changes
Dec 6, 2023
W95Psp
approved these changes
Jan 4, 2024
|
Thanks! I had experimented with moving the ProVerif toolchain tests into their own directory on this branch, but I've reverted that again, just now. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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 includes basic translation of Rust
fns into ProVerifletfunmacros. The next steps would be separate treatment of thosefns that have been annotated as ProVerif processes and hooking up knownletfuns where possible (At the moment I've introduced dummy constructors up to arity 7 in order to generate syntactically valid, if useless, ProVerif for function calls).