| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
We were doing fishy things in the Term_typing file, where side-effects were
not considered in the right uniquization order because of the uniq_seff_rev
function. It probably did not matter after a9b76df because effects were
(mostly) uniquize upfront, but this is not clear because of the use of the
transparente API in the module.
Now everything has to go through the opaque API, so that a proper dependence
order is ensured.
|
|
We move it from Entries to Term_typing and export the few functions needed
to manipulate it in this module.
|
|
|
|
|
|
This way, after we merge PR#220, scripts can be fixed in a way that is
compatible with the 8.6 and trunk branches.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixes [Coq bug #5372](https://coq.inria.fr/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=5372)
"Anomaly: Not a valid information when defining mutual fixpoints that
are not mutual with Function".
|
|
|
|
I believe an unwanted shadowing was introduced by a4043608f704f0.
|
|
|
|
(ProcThreeStInl.v, when the final "Defined" runs). I've verified that the
change here fixes the stack overflow there with Coq 8.5pl2.
In this version, all the recursive calls are in tail position. Instead of
taking a single list of instructions, `emit' here takes a curent list and a remaining
list of lists of instructions. That means the two calls elsewhere in the file now
add an empty list argument. The algorithm works on the current list until it's empty,
then works on the remaining lists. The most complex case is for Ksequence, where
one of the pieces becomes the new current list, and the other pieces are consed onto
the remaining sub-lists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This warning was shown in CoqIDE but not by coqc.
|
|
correctly as…
|
|
We need to agree a bit more with upstream.
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is needed to fix `Declare ML Module "ltac_plugin".
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is in preparation for landing of PR#309: Ltac as a plugin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A double call to pp_module_type inside Ocaml.pp_specif was
causing an complexity blowup when pretty-printing heavily modular
extracted code.
I wasn't able to figure out why this double call is there. It could
be the leftover of some intermediate work in 2007 before commit 350398eae
(which introduced global printing phases Pre/Impl/Intf).
Anyway I'm reasonably sure that today these two pp_module_type calls produce
the exact same pretty-printed signature (even if there's a large bunch of
imperative states around). Moreover, this duplicated signature is actually
slightly wrong: when we alias a module M with a unambiguous name like Coq__123,
the type of Coq__123 should not be an exact copy of the type of M, but rather
a "strengthened" version of it (with equality between inductive types).
So the best solution is now to use this funny feature of OCaml introduced in 3.12 :
module Coq__123 : module type of struct include M end
This "module type of struct include" is slightly awkward, but short, correct,
and trivial to produce :-). And I doubt anybody will object to the (rare) use
of some 3.12 features in extracted code of 2017...
|
|
A double call to pp_module_type inside Ocaml.pp_specif was
causing an complexity blowup when pretty-printing heavily modular
extracted code.
I wasn't able to figure out why this double call is there. It could
be the leftover of some intermediate work in 2007 before commit 350398eae
(which introduced global printing phases Pre/Impl/Intf).
Anyway I'm reasonably sure that today these two pp_module_type calls produce
the exact same pretty-printed signature (even if there's a large bunch of
imperative states around). Moreover, this duplicated signature is actually
slightly wrong: when we alias a module M with a unambiguous name like Coq__123,
the type of Coq__123 should not be an exact copy of the type of M, but rather
a "strengthened" version of it (with equality between inductive types).
So the best solution is now to use this funny feature of OCaml introduced in 3.12 :
module Coq__123 : module type of struct include M end
This "module type of struct include" is slightly awkward, but short, correct,
and trivial to produce :-). And I doubt anybody will object to the (rare) use
of some 3.12 features in extracted code of 2017...
|
|
lambda is self-quoting, see elisp manual, section 12.7 Anonymous
Functions
|
|
|
|
|
|
This was introduced in 8.5 while reorganizing the structure of
intro-patterns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The native compiler doesn't support `Require` inside `Module` sections
in some cases, we improve the error message. See:
https://coq.inria.fr/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=4335
This patch improves the error message and gives the user some
feedback.
|
|
We complete the support of 'pat in this particular case (a 'pat under
a binder in a notation).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tracking conversion problems to reconsider was lost for evars subject
to restriction (field last_mods was not updated and conversion
problems not considered to be changed).
|
|
A cleaning done in ade2363e35 (Dec 2015) was hinting at bugs in typing
a matching over a "catch-all" variable, when let-ins occur in the
arity. However ade2363e35 failed to understand what was the correct
fix, introducing instead the regressions mentioned in #5322 and #5324.
This fixes all of #5322 and #5324, as well as the handling of let-ins
in the arity.
Thanks to Jason for helping in diagnosing the problem.
|
|
This reverts commit 1d4c34c79624fb81e64dfed8874b2fc9fa66c070.
It seems the proof terminator of obligation.ml, in the case in which
Set Shrink Obligation is set, accesses the opaque proof.
|
|
|
|
This was observable in long proofs, because side effects kept being
duplicated, leading to an additional cost linear in the size of the proof.
This commit touches kernel files, but the corresponding API is only used
in tactic-facing code so that the side_effects type remains opaque. Thus
it does not affect the kernel safety.
|
