Remove uses of klabel{}(_) attribute for special-casing symbols
#3741
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
Baltoli
changed the title
klabel{}(_) attribute for special-casing symbols
jberthold
reviewed
Mar 19, 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
See #3742 for full context; this PR adds a backwards-compatible check for
symbol'Kywdas well asklabelfor the pseudo-builtin sortsEndiannessandSignedness. When this is merged, I'll be able to finish working on runtimeverification/k#4045. Then, when that PR lands, the frontend will no longer emitklabel(_)to KORE, and we can safely remove the backwards-compatible part of this PR.The integration test suite's checked-in KORE files are all updated to use the new attribute rather than the old one, but the tests that use K to compile fresh KORE will still be using
klabel(_)until the dependency update job induced by the changes above goes through.I have verified manually that building K with this HB commit allows the failing integration test in #3742 to pass.
Thanks @jberthold for the suggestions!
The implementation here would ideally be made backwards-compatible; my version induces a dependency loop (hence failing tests, it would need an update to the K dependency to go through first for the integration test suite to pass).