Skip to content

C front-end: tolerate type differences with asm renaming #7584

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.

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

Merged

Conversation

tautschnig
Copy link
Collaborator

The example found in glibc shows how asm renaming may be combined with changes in return type names (even when there isn't actually a bit-level difference amongst the types). Weakening the asm-renamed declaration by marking it "incomplete" works around this problem.

  • Each commit message has a non-empty body, explaining why the change was made.
  • n/a Methods or procedures I have added are documented, following the guidelines provided in CODING_STANDARD.md.
  • n/a The feature or user visible behaviour I have added or modified has been documented in the User Guide in doc/cprover-manual/
  • Regression or unit tests are included, or existing tests cover the modified code (in this case I have detailed which ones those are in the commit message).
  • n/a My commit message includes data points confirming performance improvements (if claimed).
  • My PR is restricted to a single feature or bugfix.
  • n/a White-space or formatting changes outside the feature-related changed lines are in commits of their own.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 9, 2023

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 80.39%. Comparing base (22d25d1) to head (f6fd739).
⚠️ Report is 3 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #7584      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    80.39%   80.39%   -0.01%     
===========================================
  Files         1688     1688              
  Lines       207403   207405       +2     
  Branches        73       73              
===========================================
- Hits        166752   166751       -1     
- Misses       40651    40654       +3     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@tautschnig tautschnig force-pushed the features/asm-renaming-type-conflict branch 2 times, most recently from 0589c0e to 78011f4 Compare July 29, 2025 15:46
We already had working tests for scanf and fscanf, and can easily extend
this to all variants.
The example found in glibc shows how asm renaming may be combined with
changes in return type names (even when there isn't actually a bit-level
difference amongst the types). Weakening the asm-renamed declaration by
marking it "incomplete" works around this problem.
@tautschnig tautschnig force-pushed the features/asm-renaming-type-conflict branch from 78011f4 to f6fd739 Compare July 30, 2025 07:19
@tautschnig tautschnig merged commit 6b6c8d3 into diffblue:develop Jul 30, 2025
41 checks passed
@tautschnig tautschnig deleted the features/asm-renaming-type-conflict branch July 30, 2025 09:13
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants