| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
Reviewed-by: cpitclaudel
Reviewed-by: ppedrot
|
|
|
|
vice versa
|
|
|
|
This is a follow-up of #9062, which introduced a discrenpancy between
the two unification engines.
|
|
|
|
When calling an Ltac function, add specific locations when
interpreting the function, when interpreting the arguments and when
executating the call (in a TacArg).
|
|
This is important for TacArg arguments, which typically corresponds to
calling an Ltac function.
|
|
|
|
The update of a loc needs sometimes to override (when calling an Ltac
function), and otherwise to keep the existing loc (assumed to be
fined). We refine this (see e.g. the ErrorLocation_tac_in_term tests).
Moreover, when overriding, this was going to a tclOR backtracking
point which was setting the loc to a completely disjoint part of the
code having caused the error (see #12773). We replace the tclOR by a
tclORELSE.
|
|
In our quest to unify all the declaration paths, an important step
is to account for the state pertaining to `Program` declarations.
Whereas regular proofs keep are kept in a stack-like structure;
obligations for constants defined by `Program` are stored in a global
map which is manipulated by almost regular open/close proof primitives.
We make this manipulation explicit by handling the program state
functionally, in a similar way than we already do for lemmas.
This requires to extend the proof DSL a bit; but IMO changes are
acceptable given the gain.
Most of the PR is routine; only remarkable change is that the hook is
called explicitly in `finish_admitted` as it had to learn about the
different types of proof_endings.
Note that we could have gone deeper and use the type system to refine
the core proof type; IMO it is still too preliminary so it is better
to do this step as an intermediate one towards a deeper unification.
|
|
Reviewed-by: Zimmi48
Ack-by: ejgallego
Reviewed-by: maximedenes
|
|
After #12504 , we can encapsulate and consolidate low-level state
logic in `Vernacstate`, removing `States` which is now a stub.
There is hope to clean up some stuff regarding the handling of
low-level proof state, by moving both `Evarutil.meta_counter` and
`Evd.evar_counter_summary` into the proof state itself [obligations
state is taken care in #11836] , but this will take some time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This allows us to remove a large chunk of the internal API, and is the
pre-requisite to get rid of [Proof_ending], and even more refactoring
on the declare path.
|
|
We unify information about constants so it is shared among all the
paths [interactive, NI, obligations].
IMHO the current setup looks pretty good, with information split into
a per-constant record `CInfo.t` and variables affecting mutual
definitions at once, which live in `Info.t`.
Main information outside our `Info` record is `opaque`, which is
provided at different moments in several cases.
There are a few nits regarding interactive proofs, which will go away
in the next commits.
|
|
This is in preparation for the next commit which will clean-up the
current API flow in `Declare`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
This improves the interface, and allows even more sealing of the API.
This is yet work in progress.
|
|
The module is now a stub. We choose to be explicit on the parameters
for now, this will improve in next commits with the refactoring of
proof / constant information.
|
|
At this point the record in lemmas was just a stub; next commit will
stop exposing the internals of mutual information, and pave the way
for the refactoring of `Info.t` handling in the Declare interface.
|
|
Having two different modules led to the availability of internal API in
the mli.
|
|
Reviewed-by: ppedrot
|
|
|
|
Reviewed-by: Zimmi48
|
|
It was deprecated in 8.12 and not used in the wild.
|
|
|
|
Ack-by: SkySkimmer
Reviewed-by: ppedrot
|
|
Ack-by: gares
Ack-by: ppedrot
|
|
Re-raising inside exception handlers must be done with care in order
to preserve backtraces; even if newer OCaml versions do a better job
in automatically spilling `%reraise` in places that matter, there is
no guarantee for that to happen.
I've done a best-effort pass of places that were re-raising
incorrectly, hopefully I got the logic right.
There is the special case of `Nametab.error_global_not_found` which is
raised many times in response to a `Not_found` error; IMHO this error
should be converted to something more specific, however the scope of
that change would be huge as to do easily...
|
|
runtime.
Reviewed-by: herbelin
|
|
Current backtraces for tactics leave a bit to desire, for example
given the program:
```coq
Lemma u n : n + 0 = n.
rewrite plus_O_n.
```
the backtrace stops at:
```
Found no subterm matching "0 + ?M160" in the current goal.
Called from file "proofs/proof.ml", line 381, characters 4-42
Called from file "tactics/pfedit.ml", line 102, characters 31-58
Called from file "plugins/ltac/g_ltac.mlg", line 378, characters 8-84
```
Backtrace information `?info` is as of today optional in some tactics,
such as `tclZERO`, it doesn't cost a lot however to reify backtrace
information indeed in `tclZERO` and provide backtraces for all tactic
errors. The cost should be small if we are not in debug mode.
The backtrace for the failed rewrite is now:
```
Found no subterm matching "0 + ?M160" in the current goal.
Raised at file "pretyping/unification.ml", line 1827, characters 14-73
Called from file "pretyping/unification.ml", line 1929, characters 17-53
Called from file "pretyping/unification.ml", line 1948, characters 22-72
Called from file "pretyping/unification.ml", line 2020, characters 14-56
Re-raised at file "pretyping/unification.ml", line 2021, characters 66-73
Called from file "proofs/clenv.ml", line 254, characters 12-58
Called from file "proofs/clenvtac.ml", line 95, characters 16-53
Called from file "engine/proofview.ml", line 1110, characters 40-46
Called from file "engine/proofview.ml", line 1115, characters 10-34
Re-raised at file "clib/exninfo.ml", line 82, characters 4-38
Called from file "proofs/proof.ml", line 381, characters 4-42
Called from file "tactics/pfedit.ml", line 102, characters 31-58
Called from file "plugins/ltac/g_ltac.mlg", line 378, characters 8-84
```
which IMO is much better.
|
|
Reviewed-by: Matafou
Ack-by: SkySkimmer
Reviewed-by: gares
|
|
|
|
This seems to be a pattern used quite a bit in the wild, it does not hurt
to be a bit more lenient to tolerate this kind of use. Interestingly the
API was already offering a similar generalization in some unrelated places.
We also backtrack on the change in Floats.FloatLemmas since it is an instance
of this phenomenon.
|
|
See #11840 for a motivation. I had to fix Floats.FloatLemmas because
it uses the same name for a notation and a term, and the fact this
unfold was working on this was clearly a bug. I hope nobody relies
on this kind of stuff in the wild.
Fixes #5764: "Cannot coerce ..." should be a runtime error.
Fixes #5159: "Cannot coerce ..." should not be an error.
Fixes #4925: unfold gives error on Admitted.
|
|
Reviewed-by: Zimmi48
Reviewed-by: jfehrle
Ack-by: ppedrot
|
|
Reviewed-by: ppedrot
|
|
Reviewed-by: herbelin
|
|
Reviewed-by: ejgallego
|
|
Ack-by: Zimmi48
Ack-by: ejgallego
Ack-by: herbelin
Ack-by: ppedrot
|
|
This is extracted from #9710, where we need the environment anyway to compute
iota rules on inductive types with let-bindings. The commit is self-contained,
so I think it could go directly in to save me a few rebases.
Furthermore, this is also related to #11707. Assuming we split cbn from the
other reduction machine, this allows to merge the "local" machine with
the general one, since after this PR they will have the same type. One less
reduction machine should make people happy.
|
|
Since we don't always have the call trace anymore, we explicitly
insert a catch of failures in TacAlias. The trace is then treated in
this catch rather than propagated to the underlying calls (a VFun?). I
hope this is doing the same.
The suggestion to use a tclOR is from P.-M. Pédrot.
Note: this is not fully ideal, the messages which were expecting a
trace should be rethought to take into account either that the calls
are not printed anymore, or to print them again.
|
|
Reviewed-by: Matafou
Reviewed-by: SkySkimmer
|
|
Useful for guarding calls to `unfold` or `cbv` to ensure that, e.g.,
`Opaque foo` doesn't break some automation which tries to unfold `foo`.
We have some timeouts in the strategy success file. We should not run
into issues, because we are not really testing how long these take. We
could just as well use `Timeout 60` or longer, we just want to make sure
the file dies more quickly rather than taking over 10^100 steps.
Note that this tactic does not play well with `abstract`; I have a
potentially controversial change that fixes this issue.
One of the lines in the doc comes from
https://github.com/coq/coq/pull/12129#issuecomment-619771556
Co-Authored-By: Pierre-Marie Pédrot <pierre-marie.pedrot@irif.fr>
Co-Authored-By: Théo Zimmermann <theo.zimmermann@inria.fr>
Co-Authored-By: Michael Soegtrop <7895506+MSoegtropIMC@users.noreply.github.com>
|
|
Part of the plan of #11840.
|
|
The API in `DeclareDef` should become the recommended API in `Declare`.
This greatly reduces the exposure of internals; we still have a large
offender in `Lemmas` but that will be taken care of in the next
commit; effectively removing quite some chunks from `declare.mli`.
This PR originally introduced a dependency cycle due to:
- `Declare`: uses `Vernacexpr.decl_notation list`
- `Vernacexpr`: uses `ComHint.hint_expr`
- `ComHint`: uses `Declare.declare_constant`
This is a real cycle in the sense that `ComHint` would have also move
to `DeclareDef` in the medium term.
There were quite a few ways to solve it, we have chosen to
move the hints ast to `Vernacexpr` as it is not very invasive
and seems consistent with the current style.
Alternatives, which could be considered at a later stage are for
example moving the notations AST to `Metasyntax`, having `Declare` not
to depend on `Vernacexpr` [which seems actually a good thing to do in
the medium term], reworking notation support more deeply...
|
