Remove duplicate binop handling from memOutOfBounds#2066
Open
sim642 wants to merge 4 commits into
Open
Conversation
f6dce37 to
af1e6a1
Compare
Member
Author
|
This makes no difference to SV-COMP valid-memsafety verdicts but it does slightly change the dashboard checks:
I'll look into the cases which change from safe/error into warnings. |
This was referenced Jun 26, 2026
This file contains hidden or 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
After inspecting the dashboard checks, turns out this also fixes a soundness issue. The previous handling for
Memstrangely only covered dereferencing of variables and binops but nothing else.The extracted tests contain dereferences of other expressions like
*(unsigned char *) sand*--(*s0)(this one is wild!).I think some redundancy/incorrectness might still remain:
Memdoes two different bounds checks, one doesn't account for offsets of theMem, the other doesn't account for offsets of the address underMem. I suspect these should be one combined check to be tried out in a future PR.