Experiment with unassume for mutex analysis #1715
Draft
Conversation
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
sim642
added
feature
sv-comp
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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 is a quick proof-of-concept for an idea I had a while ago: unassume for variable protection in mutex analysis.
It is the first example of a non–value-domain unassume operator.
To do so, this also implements the custom
protected_byYAML witness entry type from our COOP 2023 talk, including generation and validation.On test 13/01 it reduces evals 23 → 19, so it conceptually seems to work (even in a trivial case!). But this needs more evaluation to see its potential.
TODO
location_mutexentry type as well.