Concretize all abstract functions in the IO-spec #231
Merged
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
jcp19
requested changes
Nov 5, 2023
Co-authored-by: João Pereira <joaopereira.19@gmail.com>
jcp19
reviewed
Nov 14, 2023
jcp19
reviewed
Nov 15, 2023
jcp19
reviewed
Nov 15, 2023
Dspil
approved these changes
Nov 15, 2023
jcp19
approved these changes
Nov 15, 2023
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
All abstract functions in the IO-spec are concretized.
@jcp19 Can you take a closer look at the following functions:
is_targetandlink_typeare not given by Isabelle and have some freedom on how they can be defined.dp3s_forward_exthas its existentials removed but there is again some freedom what arguments are fed tois_target.enter_guardwas too strict and needs a case distinction on the next interface (v.IO_Internal_val1_4)enter_guardcheckssome(v.IO_Internal_val1_2) in domain(s.ibuf) ==>. Are we sure we need an implication and not a conjunction?exit_guardchecksnone[IO_ifs] in domain(s.ibuf) ==>. Are we sure we need an implication and not a conjunction?send_guardchecksv.IO_val_Pkt2_1 in domain(s.obuf) ==>. Are we sure we need an implication and not a conjunction?