Extend concrete evaluation #101
Conversation
|
Hey João, sorry for the massive delay. However, in an effort to reduce your workload, I've updated issue #99. I believe we've completed most of the operators, but please pay special attention to the ones annotated with ❗, as I'm not sure if we've included them yet. In this PR, you can remove the float operators you added. I've begun moving them directly to ecma-sl here: formalsec/ECMA-SL#stdlib Regarding the string operators you included, I'd like to keep them, excluding the lowercase/uppercase functions. We'll also transfer those to ecma-sl's standard library. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
By the way, could you add simple tests to test_{unop|binop|triop|cvtop}, similar to the ones already present, just to verify if the construction of the operators you added is being correctly simplified in practice?
I don't want to rush this. I'm going to pin this branch to https://github.com/formalsec/ECMA-SL/tree/stdlib and see if we can start the value migration
joaomhmpereira
force-pushed
the
extend_ops
branch
from
1279c7d to
29e15fe
Compare
|
@filipeom I think this is finally ready for review |
|
Sorry for the delay, I did a quick check of the code, I'll try to give more feedback as I start to get more time |
|
There are a few more changes I want to add here before we merge. @joaomhmpereira you merged main into here on your last commit fe136d2? |
Yes, but it was an older version where the tests for the solvers were not fixed yet |
Okok, so I'll rebase it on main to fix conflicts as well |
filipeom
force-pushed
the
extend_ops
branch
2 times, most recently
from
a83ef4f to
b1c2116
Compare
|
Don't know why the CI is failing on bitwuzla. But it should be ok |
to address https://github.com/formalsec/encoding/issues/99