Skip to content

Set paths-symex-explore-all when unwinding-assertions defaults to true#8861

Open
tautschnig wants to merge 1 commit intodiffblue:developfrom
tautschnig:fix-path-lifo-non-static-props
Open

Set paths-symex-explore-all when unwinding-assertions defaults to true#8861
tautschnig wants to merge 1 commit intodiffblue:developfrom
tautschnig:fix-path-lifo-non-static-props

Conversation

@tautschnig
Copy link
Collaborator

When unwinding-assertions is enabled by default (via set_default_analysis_flags), paths-symex-explore-all must also be enabled. Otherwise, the single-path symex checker's has_finished_exploration check can return true before any path is explored, because dynamically generated properties (like 'no body for callee') don't exist in the initial properties map.

The explicit --unwinding-assertions flag already set paths-symex-explore-all (line 192), but the default enablement path did not, causing --paths lifo to miss no-body assertions.

Co-authored-by: Kiro kiro-agent@users.noreply.github.com

All tests previously tagged paths-lifo-expected-failure now pass, so remove the tag and the corresponding exclusion from the Makefile and CMakeLists.txt.

  • 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.
  • 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.

@tautschnig tautschnig self-assigned this Mar 13, 2026
Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings March 13, 2026 09:43
Copy link

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

This PR fixes a bug where --paths lifo mode could miss dynamically generated assertions (like "no body for callee") when unwinding-assertions was enabled by default via set_default_analysis_flags. The root cause was that paths-symex-explore-all was only set when --unwinding-assertions was passed explicitly on the command line, not when it was enabled by the default analysis flags.

Changes:

  • Set paths-symex-explore-all alongside unwinding-assertions in the default analysis flags path in cbmc_parse_options.cpp.
  • Remove the paths-lifo-expected-failure tag from 17 regression test .desc files that now pass with --paths lifo.
  • Remove the paths-lifo-expected-failure exclusion from regression/cbmc/Makefile and regression/cbmc/CMakeLists.txt.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 22 out of 22 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

File Description
src/cbmc/cbmc_parse_options.cpp Core fix: set paths-symex-explore-all when unwinding-assertions defaults on
regression/cbmc/Makefile Remove -X paths-lifo-expected-failure exclusion from test-paths-lifo target
regression/cbmc/CMakeLists.txt Remove paths-lifo-expected-failure exclusion from cbmc-paths-lifo test profile
17 × regression/cbmc//test.desc Remove paths-lifo-expected-failure tag, now tagged as plain CORE

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

When unwinding-assertions is enabled by default (via
set_default_analysis_flags), paths-symex-explore-all must also be
enabled. Otherwise, the single-path symex checker's
has_finished_exploration check can return true before any path is
explored, because dynamically generated properties (like 'no body for
callee') don't exist in the initial properties map.

The explicit --unwinding-assertions flag already set
paths-symex-explore-all (line 192), but the default enablement path
did not, causing --paths lifo to miss no-body assertions.

Also fix two pre-existing bugs exposed by the exploration fix:
- --outfile with an invalid path was silently ignored in --paths mode
  because the solver (and thus the file) was never created when all VCCs
  were simplified away. Add early outfile validation.
- --sat-solver with an invalid name was silently ignored for the same
  reason. Add early solver name validation in parse_sat_options.

Five tests previously tagged paths-lifo-expected-failure now pass
with --paths lifo, so remove the tag from those.

Co-authored-by: Kiro <kiro-agent@users.noreply.github.com>
@tautschnig tautschnig force-pushed the fix-path-lifo-non-static-props branch from bc8cdc9 to 2760b9b Compare March 13, 2026 11:31
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 13, 2026

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 95.00000% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 80.00%. Comparing base (7a4df92) to head (2760b9b).

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
src/goto-checker/solver_factory.cpp 91.66% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #8861      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    80.01%   80.00%   -0.01%     
===========================================
  Files         1703     1703              
  Lines       188396   188415      +19     
  Branches        73       73              
===========================================
+ Hits        150738   150746       +8     
- Misses       37658    37669      +11     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

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.

4 participants