Daniel Schwartz-Narbonne

> On the one hand, I want a test, on the other hand, its randomization and so would fail sometimes. > > Anyone got a suggestion? Have `n` copies of...

```rust // Or use macros to make this cleaner struct Foo1 { a: u16; b: u32; } struct Foo2 { a: u16; b: u32; } struct Foo3 { a: u16;...

If we do n steps, it will fail in `2^(-n)` times. if we set `n == 64`, we get an erroneous failure probability less than that of the computer being...

I'm not sure we need `--enable-unstable`. What would our criteria be for marking it more stable than it is now? > Thank you for the changes! > > I'm debating...

Released action

Test case added in `cbmc/Intrinsics/fixme_try.rs`

It's a macro used in e.g. ESDK-C Defined here: https://github.com/aws/aws-encryption-sdk-c/blob/2743a977b3959e23131903b1a70dbc4749632a5f/verification/cbmc/proofs/Makefile.local_default#L23 Used e.g. here: https://github.com/aws/aws-encryption-sdk-c/blob/2743a977b3959e23131903b1a70dbc4749632a5f/verification/cbmc/proofs/aws_cryptosdk_enc_materials_destroy/Makefile#L64