Lucas C. Cordeiro

You can correct me if I'm wrong, but it is better to concentrate our efforts on the recent/active SMT solvers. However, please let me know if you see any benefits...

Thanks for this explanation, @fbrausse. I'm fine with continuing the support for CVC4.

Thanks, @fbrausse. Can I ask you what is missing to get this PR merged?

> Do you want to see the cvc5 performance (i.e., using it as --default-solver) or just regular settings to see that nothing breaks? Both things would be great ;-)

Thanks for submitting this PR, @fbrausse.

Indeed! Many thanks, @ibnyusuf and @rafaelsamenezes.

@fbrausse: Your proposed approach makes sense to me. It is worth trying, but as we discussed before, we should probably move this implementation to the symex level at some point.

Thanks, @fbrausse. Let's go ahead with your current proposal.

Closed via https://github.com/ssvlab/ssvlab.github.io/pull/12.

> @lucasccordeiro Shall we update this PR to current master and re-run both? That is, master as it is, and this PR with removed --no-por? Yes. It would be great...