| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|---|
| ... | |
| | | |\ \ \
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Was PR#366: Univs: fix bug 5208
|
| | | | | | | |
|
| | | |\ \ \ \
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
Was PR#377: Univs: fix bug #5180
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
We make this warning configurable and disabled by default.
|
| | |\| | | | | |
|
| | | |/ / / /
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | | |
In the kernel's generic conversion, backtrack on UniverseInconsistency
for the unfolding heuristic (single backtracking point in reduction).
This exception can be raised in the univ_compare structure to produce
better error messages when the generic conversion function is called
from higher level code in reductionops.ml, which itself is called during
unification in evarconv.ml.
Inside the kernel, the infer and check variants of conversion never
raise UniverseInconsistency though, so this does not change the behavior
of the kernel.
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Universes are kept in normal form w.r.t. equality but not the <=
relation, so the previous check worked almost always but was actually
too strict! In cases like (max(Set,u) = u) when u is declared >= Set it
was failing to find an equality. Applying the KISS principle:
u = v <-> u <= v /\ v <= u.
Fix invariant breakage that triggered the discovery of the check_eq bug as well. No algebraic universes should appear in a term position (on the left of
a colon in a typing judgment), this was not the case when an algebraic
universe instantiated an evar that appeared in the term. We force their
universe variable status to change in refresh_universes to avoid this.
Fix ind sort inference: Use syntactic universe equality for inductive
sort inference instead of check_leq (which now correctly takes
constraints into account) and simplify code
|
| | | |/ / / |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | |
If the result had its 30th bit set, then all the high part of the result
on a 64-bit architecture would end up being set, thus breaking subsequent
computations.
This patch also fixes the incorrectly parenthesized definition of
uint32_of_value, which by luck was never misused.
|
| |/ / / / |
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
Strangely enough, the checker seems to rely on an outdated decompose_app
function which is not the same as the kernel, as the latter is sensitive
to casts. Cast-manipulating functions from the kernel are only used on
upper layers, and thus was moved there.
|
| |\| | | |
|
| | |\| | |
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | | |
|
| |\| | | |
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
The bytecode interpreter ensures that the stack space available at some
points is above a static threshold. However, arbitrary large stack space
can be needed between two check points, leading to segmentation faults
in some cases.
We track the use of stack space at compilation time and add
an instruction to ensure greater stack capacity when required. This is
inspired from OCaml's PR#339 and PR#7168.
Patch written with Benjamin Grégoire.
|
| | | | | |
|
| |\| | | |
|
| | | | | |
|
| |\| | | |
|
| | |\| | |
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
side_effects. Partial solution to the handling of side effects
in proofview.
|
| | | | | |
|
| |\| | | |
|
| | |\ \ \
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | |
Was PR#263: Fast lookup in named contexts
|
| | | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | |
replaced with the recommended "Filename.get_temp_dir_name".
|
| |\| | | | |
|
| | |\ \ \ \
| | | |/ /
| | |/| | |
|
| | | | | | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | |
The greatest danger of OCaml's polymorphic equality is that PMP can
replace it with pointer equality at any time, be warned :)
The lack of optimization may account for an exponential blow-up in size
of the generated code, as well as worse runtime performance.
|
| | | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | |
This field was only used by the VM before, but since the previous patches,
this part of the code relies on the map instead.
|
| | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | |
|
| | | |/ /
| |/| | |
|
| |\ \ \ \ |
|
| |\ \ \ \ \
| | |/ / /
| |/| | | |
|
| | | | | | |
|
| |\| | | | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | |
Spotted by PMP.
|
| | | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | |
composition operator.
Short story:
This pull-request:
(1) removes the definition of the "right-to-left" function composition operator
(2) adds the definition of the "left-to-right" function composition operator
(3) rewrites the code relying on "right-to-left" function composition to rely on "left-to-right" function composition operator instead.
Long story:
In mathematics, function composition is traditionally denoted with ∘ operator.
Ocaml standard library does not provide analogous operator under any name.
Batteries Included provides provides two alternatives:
_ % _
and
_ %> _
The first operator one corresponds to the classical ∘ operator routinely used in mathematics.
I.e.:
(f4 % f3 % f2 % f1) x ≜ (f4 ∘ f3 ∘ f2 ∘ f1) x
We can call it "right-to-left" composition because:
- the function we write as first (f4) will be called as last
- and the function write as last (f1) will be called as first.
The meaning of the second operator is this:
(f1 %> f2 %> f3 %> f4) x ≜ (f4 ∘ f3 ∘ f2 ∘ f1) x
We can call it "left-to-right" composition because:
- the function we write as first (f1) will be called first
- and the function we write as last (f4) will be called last
That is, the functions are written in the same order in which we write and read them.
I think that it makes sense to prefer the "left-to-right" variant because
it enables us to write functions in the same order in which they will be actually called
and it thus better fits our culture
(we read/write from left to right).
|
| | | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | |
which can be useful in general, and then simplifying "Printer.pr_named_decl" function
|
| | | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | |
"Context.Named.{to,of}_rel_decl"
|
| | | | | | |
|
| |\| | | | |
|
| | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | |
"Context.{Rel,Named}.fold_constr"
|
Maxime Dénès
Matthieu Sozeau
Pierre-Marie Pédrot
Guillaume Melquiond
Matej Kosik
Matthieu Sozeau
Matej Kosik