Skip to content
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

SAWCore primitives cannot be made uninterpreted #1680

Closed
robdockins opened this issue Jun 2, 2022 · 0 comments · Fixed by #1682
Closed

SAWCore primitives cannot be made uninterpreted #1680

robdockins opened this issue Jun 2, 2022 · 0 comments · Fixed by #1682
Labels
type: enhancement Issues describing an improvement to an existing feature or capability

Comments

@robdockins
Copy link
Contributor

When using the unint variants of proof tactics, it seems that SAWCore primitives cannot be made uninterpreted; although the name of the primitive is accepted in the unint list without error, it is nonetheless still interpreted according to its semantics.

For me, this issue arises with the arrayCopy primitive. I've arranged a proof goal so that I think it should be a relatively straightforward proof of equivalence if we just take arrayCopy as a function. However, it is instead translated to the solver as a "uniquely specified" constant, where the output is a fresh variable and a universally-quantified assertion is made that specifies the value it should have. Unfortunately, this limits the solvers that can be used, and solver generally have a very hard time with such goals. I'd like to force arrayCopy to be treated as a uninterpreted function instead, and defer the reasoning about its semantics to a later step.

@robdockins robdockins added the type: enhancement Issues describing an improvement to an existing feature or capability label Jun 2, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
type: enhancement Issues describing an improvement to an existing feature or capability
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

1 participant