Support for Ghost Fields #766
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
I will soon test this out in SCION to make sure that this works with the SCION idioms. I will report the results here. |
4 tasks
|
I just adapted the SCION code to be accepted by this new PR (viperproject/VerifiedSCION#337). As such, I do NOT have any objections against merging this 🚀. Note that this comment is not a review, I did not look at the code. |
jcp19
reviewed
May 15, 2024
jcp19
reviewed
May 21, 2024
src/main/scala/viper/gobra/frontend/info/implementation/property/Implements.scala
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
src/main/scala/viper/gobra/frontend/info/implementation/typing/TypeTyping.scala
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
jcp19
approved these changes
May 21, 2024
Felalolf
reviewed
May 22, 2024
src/main/scala/viper/gobra/frontend/info/implementation/typing/TypeTyping.scala
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| (underlyingType(typ(s.base)), isGhostField) match { | ||
| case (_, true) => isGhost // ghost fields are always ghost memory | ||
| val isGhostEmbedding = s.path.exists { | ||
| case MemberPath.Next(decl) => decl.ghost |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am not super sure whether this is sufficient. Can the path not be longer?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't quite understand. I'm iterating here over the entire field selection's path
src/test/resources/regressions/features/ghost_field/ghost-field-comparison-simple01.gobra
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Felalolf
reviewed
May 22, 2024
src/main/scala/viper/gobra/frontend/info/implementation/property/Implements.scala
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Felalolf
approved these changes
May 23, 2024
ArquintL
changed the base branch from
ghost-field-target-branch
to
tmp-branch-for-#747-#755-#766
ArquintL
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 24, 2024
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 PR depends on PRs #747 & #755 and, thus, targets
ghost-field-target-branch, which corresponds to the branch used in #755.This PR adds ghost fields, i.e., allows the use of
ghostin front of field declarations. Note that struct embeddings can (so far) not be ghost. While ghost fields work mostly analogously to actual, non-ghost, fields, there are a few restrictions / differences to point out:ghost-field-interface-simple01.gobraandghost-field-interface-fail01.gobra)==) on structs considers only actual fields, i.e., structs are equal modulo ghost fields. To include ghost fields in the comparison, ghost equality (===) can be used instead (seeghost-field-comparison-simple01.gobra)ghost-field-map-fail01.gobra)