Raise an error when postconditions of pure functions contain old() expressions #1474
Conversation
This file contains 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
zgrannan
force-pushed
the
zgrannan/old-in-pure-error
branch
from
1d6b1aa
to
93febed
Compare
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
It doesn't make sense to have
old()expressions in postconditions of pure functions (since they don't modify the heap). Also, thePureFunctionEncodercan't handle them (resulting in internal/consistency errors).This PR makes it an error to include
old()in postconditions of pure functions. Resolves #1306This PR also includes support for
StubFunctionEncoderto handle bodyless functions (e.g. those from#[extern_spec])