Conversation
Collaborator
Author
|
Cc @dianegolfouse we need to discuss this: how shouldwe make |
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
This is an attempt at verifying a spin lock implementation.
I am reasonably satisfied with these examples, which are not so long, and which the SMT solvers solve quite easily. There is one problem in both the SC version and the RelAcq version: we cannot prove the
into_innerfunction, because we cannot setup a "contract" that aFullBorrowshould follow and whichBorrowEndmay rely on. Without that, it is impossible to prove ininto_innerthat the permission that we get back is indeed the permission for the location protected by the lock.