Removing duplicate prose #69
Closed
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
rossberg
reviewed
Feb 5, 2024
| Instr_ok/reinterpret | ||
| Instr_ok/convert-* | ||
| } | ||
| $${rule+: Instr_ok/cvtop-*} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This test was supposed to test splices with multiple rule patterns listed, so preferably change it to
Suggested change
| $${rule+: Instr_ok/cvtop-*} | |
| $${rule+: | |
| Instr_ok/cvtop-reinterpret | |
| Instr_ok/cvtop-convert-* | |
| } |
Comment on lines
+197
to
+210
| let get_name = function | ||
| | Al.Ast.RuleA ((id, _), _, _) -> id | ||
| | Al.Ast.FuncA (id, _, _) -> id | ||
| in | ||
| let al_manual = Backend_interpreter.Manual.manual_algos in | ||
| let names_manual = List.map get_name al_manual in | ||
| let al_translated = | ||
| List.filter | ||
| (fun algo -> | ||
| let name_translated = get_name algo in | ||
| not (List.mem name_translated names_manual)) | ||
| (Il2al.Translate.translate il) | ||
| in | ||
| al_translated @ al_manual |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This workaround shouldn't be in main. Can you move it to the backend somehow? Also, add a comment explaining why this is needed, and that (supposedly?) it's a TODO to get rid of the workaround eventually.
|
This PR went stale, but will soon revisit on this issue :) |
Alan-Liang
pushed a commit
to Alan-Liang/spectec
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 2, 2024
When looking up a type on the context, expand it (using `~~`) into the expected composite type instead of using equality (`=`). Also fix some places where equality should have been used when looking up tags. Add `func` to expanded function types.
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.
As mentioned in #63, there were duplicate prose for:
There were two reasons:
(1) Manually-written algorithms
Execution algorithms for
exec/array.new_dataandexec/call_refare written manually inbackend-interpreter/manual.ml, for translating them to AL were quite tricky. The problem was that the failed translation (indicated byYetI) fromil2al/translate.mland the manual algorithms were counted twice. Thus, I've modifiedexe-watsup/main.mlto nullify the failed translations for manual algorithms.This resolves the upper-two warnings.
(2) Prefix validation rule names
When translating formal rules to prose, we first group validation rules by their name's prefix. For example,
Instr_ok/select-explandInstr_ok/select-implare grouped by their prefixselect-. The rule names for the validation ofcvtopwere not properly named with the same prefix, so I re-named them to:cvtop-reinterpret,cvtop-convert-i, andcvtop-convert-f.This handles the last warning, so all warnings are now gone. Yet, the current validation prose generator cannot handle multiple validation rules per Wasm instruction.
selectandcvtopare such cases, where the generator only takes the first rule and translates it, ignoring the rest.spectec/spectec/src/backend-prose/gen.ml
Line 83 in 9a1f564
This should be addressed, but will take some time since this requires some discussion with @f52985.