Rafael Sá Menezes
Rafael Sá Menezes
This PR: ``` 2023-05-26T02:27:40.8875950Z Statistics: 26459 Files 2023-05-26T02:27:40.8878371Z correct: 14378 2023-05-26T02:27:40.8900102Z correct true: 8154 2023-05-26T02:27:40.8901427Z correct false: 6224 2023-05-26T02:27:40.8902410Z incorrect: 62 2023-05-26T02:27:40.8903417Z incorrect true: 31 2023-05-26T02:27:40.8904293Z incorrect false: 31 2023-05-26T02:27:40.8904830Z...
Latest PR results: ``` Statistics: 26459 Files correct: 14369 correct true: 8148 correct false: 6221 incorrect: 61 incorrect true: 30 incorrect false: 31 unknown: 12029 Score: 21061 (max: 43043) ```
This issue is no longer valid since we replace the entire message system
This is no longer needed
Is there any way to obtain all possible target triples for the host during compilation?
> PS: I might have stated points 1. and 2. clearer, as they might read contradictory. What I meant: maybe this flag should be called `unsliceable` (or `no_slice`, in analogy...
> We could make it more general in the future Then I feel like the correct approach is to keep `sliceable` and set it to true for every instruction except...
I moved to draft while I fix the latest changes ``` Statistics: 9537 Files correct: 4259 correct true: 2655 correct false: 1604 incorrect: 7 incorrect true: 6 incorrect false: 1...
Hm apparently, the issue is that this constructor is being used and manipulated without a proper call to `make_assume`: ``` inline instructiont() : location(static_cast(get_nil_irep())), type(NO_INSTRUCTION_TYPE), inductive_step_instruction(false), inductive_assertion(false), location_number(0), loop_number(unsigned(0)), target_number(unsigned(-1))...
Latest version: ``` Statistics: 9537 Files correct: 4261 correct true: 2656 correct false: 1605 incorrect: 6 incorrect true: 6 incorrect false: 0 unknown: 5270 Score: 6725 (max: 15923) ``` @fbrausse...