Skip to content

[move-abstract-interpreter] Make move-abstract-interpreter more general #21574

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 12 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

tnowacki
Copy link
Contributor

Description

Test plan

  • Non functional

Release notes

Check each box that your changes affect. If none of the boxes relate to your changes, release notes aren't required.

For each box you select, include information after the relevant heading that describes the impact of your changes that a user might notice and any actions they must take to implement updates.

  • Protocol:
  • Nodes (Validators and Full nodes):
  • gRPC:
  • JSON-RPC:
  • GraphQL:
  • CLI:
  • Rust SDK:

Copy link

vercel bot commented Mar 23, 2025

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name Status Preview Comments Updated (UTC)
sui-docs ✅ Ready (Inspect) Visit Preview 💬 Add feedback Mar 24, 2025 3:04am
2 Skipped Deployments
Name Status Preview Comments Updated (UTC)
multisig-toolkit ⬜️ Ignored (Inspect) Visit Preview Mar 24, 2025 3:04am
sui-kiosk ⬜️ Ignored (Inspect) Visit Preview Mar 24, 2025 3:04am

type State: AbstractDomain;
type Error;
fn start(&mut self) -> Result<(), Self::Error>;
fn join(
Copy link
Collaborator

@sblackshear sblackshear Mar 25, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I suspect that for fancier (non bytecode verifier) analyses, we are going to need fn widen(&mut self, pre: &mut Self::State, post: &Self::State) (or similar) as well. But I hesitate to change the abstract interpretation code for the verified to support this--wonder if we just want a copy.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It is a good callout, and I think it is worth adding once we need it. For now though I hesitate mostly around adding it just in that we don't really know what shape it will take.
In other words, if we had a pass that we wanted to implement with widening, it would help inform the API a lot

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.

2 participants