Skip to content

Conversation

@dc-mak
Copy link
Contributor

@dc-mak dc-mak commented Aug 1, 2025

No description provided.

@dc-mak
Copy link
Contributor Author

dc-mak commented Aug 1, 2025

Ok so I think the sensible thing to do would be to have it be so that the diffed lines are guarded by whether or not it's in Fulminate mode, because silently accepting but not supporting unions in proof mode is a bad user experience.

@cp526
Copy link
Collaborator

cp526 commented Aug 1, 2025

because silently accepting but not supporting unions in proof mode is a bad user experience.

Agreed

@dc-mak dc-mak force-pushed the wf-pass-unions branch 2 times, most recently from 64a9ba1 to cb20c3f Compare August 1, 2025 16:35
@dc-mak dc-mak marked this pull request as ready for review August 1, 2025 16:35
@dc-mak dc-mak changed the title Get well-formedness check to accept unions Get wf to accept unions for Fulminate Aug 1, 2025
@pqwy
Copy link
Contributor

pqwy commented Oct 6, 2025

This branch has been updated with pqwy@4033bee by @cp526.

A more complete branch is now at https://github.com/pqwy/cn/tree/wf-pass-unions-plus .

@pqwy
Copy link
Contributor

pqwy commented Oct 6, 2025

@dc-mak Could you rebase this onto main and cherry-pick that commit, to keep things in one place?

dc-mak added 3 commits October 6, 2025 19:17
This will allow sizeof(union tag) to work in the pipeline.
Not inlining labels means that some label arguments
need to inferred rather than checked. This includes
the UB for reaching the end of a function which returns
a value without having a value to return. In this case,
I just synthesise a Unit type as a dummy if we're in
executable spec mode.
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.

3 participants