Value sets: handle extractbits out of pointers

[tautschnig]

Tracking will not be precise, but we should not lose pointers that are split up via extractbits and later on pieced together.

• 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]

Codecov Report

Base: 78.28% // Head: 78.28% // Increases project coverage by +0.00% 🎉

Coverage data is based on head (3b8fa07) compared to base (d7dd40a).
Patch coverage: 89.28% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           develop    #7339   +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage    78.28%   78.28%           
========================================
  Files         1642     1642           
  Lines       189995   190038   +43     
========================================
+ Hits        148737   148778   +41     
- Misses       41258    41260    +2     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/solvers/flattening/boolbv_byte_extract.cpp	69.73% <ø> (ø)
src/solvers/flattening/boolbv_byte_update.cpp	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/solvers/flattening/boolbv_equality.cpp	63.63% <ø> (ø)
src/solvers/flattening/boolbv_index.cpp	72.91% <ø> (ø)
...ncremental/smt2_incremental_decision_procedure.cpp	96.81% <ø> (ø)
src/util/byte_operators.h	92.72% <ø> (ø)
src/cprover/propagate.cpp	65.85% <16.66%> (-8.44%)	⬇️
src/pointer-analysis/value_set.cpp	82.50% <68.42%> (-0.39%)	⬇️
src/util/lower_byte_operators.cpp	92.70% <95.50%> (ø)
src/solvers/smt2/smt2_conv.cpp	66.79% <100.00%> (+0.40%)	⬆️
... and 3 more

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[kroening]

Does it make sense to try to make this the default for any expression?

[tautschnig]

Does it make sense to try to make this the default for any expression?

Good call, I have now implemented this.

[kroening]

Good call, I have now implemented this.

Can you now drop the code for extractbits?

[tautschnig]

Good call, I have now implemented this.

Can you now drop the code for extractbits?

I thought we might want to avoid the integer bounds to be treated as (possible pointers), but maybe we want to get more lenient here? (And if so, we'll probably want to get rid of several of the existing cases.)

[martin-cs]

This is one of those "glad I didn't have to do it" PRs. Thanks. Would you be willing to add a test case because if this breaks I would like to find out on commit rather than trying to debug it.

[tautschnig]

This is one of those "glad I didn't have to do it" PRs. Thanks. Would you be willing to add a test case because if this breaks I would like to find out on commit rather than trying to debug it.

There will be ample testing once #7340 is in place.