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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

llvm_symexec does not typecheck its term arguments #21

Closed
brianhuffman opened this issue Jun 3, 2015 · 2 comments
Closed

llvm_symexec does not typecheck its term arguments #21

brianhuffman opened this issue Jun 3, 2015 · 2 comments
Assignees
@atomb
Labels
obsolete Issues that involve/depend on deprecated code, such that they are not worth pursuing

Comments

@brianhuffman
Copy link
Contributor

The llvm_symexec command takes as one of its arguments a value of type [(String, Term, Int)], which specifies the function inputs. If the user provides terms whose types do not match the types in the llvm file, then llvm_symexec will result in a term that is not type correct. This can cause all sorts of weird problems later. See #19 for an example.

To ensure that only type-correct terms are created, llvm_symexec should compare the term types with the types of the corresponding llvm arguments, and report an error if they do not match.
@atomb atomb self-assigned this Jun 17, 2015
@atomb atomb mentioned this issue Oct 14, 2015
Closed
@atomb atomb added the next label Feb 3, 2016
@atomb atomb added the maybe fixed Issues where there's reason to think they might be fixed but that still requires confirmation label Mar 10, 2016
@atomb atomb modified the milestone: 0.2-alpha Mar 30, 2016
@atomb atomb removed this from the 0.2-alpha milestone Apr 11, 2016
@atomb atomb removed the next label Apr 2, 2019
@atomb
Copy link
Contributor

atomb commented Apr 2, 2019

We're going to remove the underlying code shortly, so this ticket won't be relevant.

@atomb atomb added the obsolete Issues that involve/depend on deprecated code, such that they are not worth pursuing label Apr 2, 2019
@atomb atomb added the wontfix Closed issues that we decided not to fix, but are still potentially relevant label May 20, 2019
@atomb
Copy link
Contributor

atomb commented May 20, 2019

We're about to merge a PR that removes llvm_symexec.

@atomb atomb closed this as completed May 20, 2019
brianhuffman pushed a commit that referenced this issue Apr 26, 2021
Merge pull request #21 from GaloisInc/issue18
2c7b485 
Translate Constant term bodies in a top-level name scope.
@sauclovian-g sauclovian-g removed wontfix Closed issues that we decided not to fix, but are still potentially relevant maybe fixed Issues where there's reason to think they might be fixed but that still requires confirmation labels Oct 24, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@atomb atomb

Labels
obsolete Issues that involve/depend on deprecated code, such that they are not worth pursuing
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@atomb @brianhuffman @sauclovian-g