Skip to content

replace_symbolt refactoring and stricter type checking #2723

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

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Aug 31, 2018

Conversation

tautschnig
Copy link
Collaborator

The first three commits are in separate pull requests already (#2720, #2721, #2722). The last three commits are actually new. Please provide feedback whether this design is acceptable/better (@kroening in particular).

@tautschnig
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Further cleanup and refactoring based on feedback provided by @kroening - I think this is much cleaner and simpler now. Thanks a lot!

@tautschnig tautschnig force-pushed the replace_symbol-cleanup branch 3 times, most recently from 2e0d5c5 to f4b6f23 Compare August 30, 2018 10:11
All such cases will have a symbol_exprt in the vicinity and thus use
insert(symbol_exprt, exprt) instead.
Any such replacement would raise questions about type consistency. The code
would also have required updating to include various tag types.
The derived class unchecked_replace_symbolt will not do any such type checking
and is to be used in all cases where types are expected to change or no type
checking can be performed.
@tautschnig tautschnig force-pushed the replace_symbol-cleanup branch from f4b6f23 to e8ac23c Compare August 31, 2018 09:31
@tautschnig tautschnig force-pushed the replace_symbol-cleanup branch from e8ac23c to 9b62514 Compare August 31, 2018 11:38
@tautschnig tautschnig merged commit ef7e55b into diffblue:develop Aug 31, 2018
@tautschnig tautschnig deleted the replace_symbol-cleanup branch August 31, 2018 12:19
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants