Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

nsatz fails when Zpos is present #381

Open
JasonGross opened this issue Jun 29, 2018 · 0 comments
Open

nsatz fails when Zpos is present #381

JasonGross opened this issue Jun 29, 2018 · 0 comments
Assignees
@andres-erbsen

Comments

@JasonGross
Copy link
Collaborator

This fails, when it should succeed

Require Import Coq.ZArith.ZArith.
Require Import Crypto.Algebra.Nsatz.
Goal forall (x:positive) (y:Z), Zpos x = Zpos x -> y = y.
Proof. intros. nsatz.
(* Error:
In nested Ltac calls to "nsatz", "nsatz", "nsatz_power",
"nsatz_sugar_power" and "nsatz_domain_sugar_power", last call failed.
No applicable tactic.
*)

Note that unlike the corresponding Coq bug (coq/coq#7966), running zify does not help with our version of nsatz.
JasonGross added a commit to JasonGross/fiat-crypto that referenced this issue Feb 21, 2022
@JasonGross
Better error messages
c543bda 
Probably if the lists are the same lengths, then we want to compare them
element-wise rather than all at once.  It's way too verbose to keep
expanding them, so we only do that when lists are not the same length.

We now get error messages such as
```
Unable to unify: [inr [378, 381, 384]] == [inr [101, 106, 108]]
Could not unify the values at index 0: [mit-plv#378, mit-plv#381, mit-plv#384] != [mit-plv#101, mit-plv#106, mit-plv#108]
index 0: mit-plv#378 != mit-plv#101
(slice 0 44, [mit-plv#377]) != (slice 0 44, [mit-plv#98])
index 0: mit-plv#377 != mit-plv#98
(add 64, [mit-plv#345, mit-plv#375]) != (add 64, [#57, mit-plv#96])
index 0: mit-plv#345 != #57
(slice 0 44, [mit-plv#337]) != (slice 0 44, [#44])
index 0: mit-plv#337 != #44
(add 64, [#41, mit-plv#334]) != (add 64, [#25, #41])
index 1: mit-plv#334 != #25
(mul 64, [#1, mit-plv#331]) != (mul 64, [#0, #1, #22])
[(add 64, [mit-plv#329, mit-plv#329])] != [#0, (const 20, [])]
[(add 64, [(mul 64, [#7, mit-plv#328]), (mul 64, [#7, mit-plv#328])])] != [#0, (const 20, [])]
[(add 64, [(mul 64, [(const 2, []), (add 64, [#0, mit-plv#327])]), (mul 64, [(const 2, []), (add 64, [#0, mit-plv#327])])])] != [#0, (const 20, [])]
[(add 64, [(mul 64, [(const 2, []), (add 64, [#0, (mul 64, [#0, mit-plv#326])])]), (mul 64, [(const 2, []), (add 64, [#0, (mul 64, [#0, mit-plv#326])])])])] != [#0, (const 20, [])]
[(add 64, [(mul 64, [(const 2, []), (add 64, [#0, (mul 64, [#0, (const 4, [])])])]), (mul 64, [(const 2, []), (add 64, [#0, (mul 64, [#0, (const 4, [])])])])])] != [#0, (const 20, [])]
[(add 64, [(mul 64, [(const 2, []), (add 64, [(old 64 0, []), (mul 64, [(old 64 0, []), (const 4, [])])])]), (mul 64, [(const 2, []), (add 64, [(old 64 0, []), (mul 64, [(old 64 0, []), (const 4, [])])])])])] != [(old 64 0, []), (const 20, [])]
```

The second to last line is generally the one to look at; the last line
adds a bit more detail to it.  Perhaps we should instead list out the
values of indices rather than expanding one additional level?
JasonGross added a commit to JasonGross/fiat-crypto that referenced this issue Feb 21, 2022
@JasonGross
Better error messages
bde03cc 
Probably if the lists are the same lengths, then we want to compare them
element-wise rather than all at once.  It's way too verbose to keep
expanding them, so we only do that when lists are not the same length.

We now get error messages such as
```
Unable to unify: [inr [378, 381, 384]] == [inr [101, 106, 108]]
Could not unify the values at index 0: [mit-plv#378, mit-plv#381, mit-plv#384] != [mit-plv#101, mit-plv#106, mit-plv#108]
index 0: mit-plv#378 != mit-plv#101
(slice 0 44, [mit-plv#377]) != (slice 0 44, [mit-plv#98])
index 0: mit-plv#377 != mit-plv#98
(add 64, [mit-plv#345, mit-plv#375]) != (add 64, [#57, mit-plv#96])
index 0: mit-plv#345 != #57
(slice 0 44, [mit-plv#337]) != (slice 0 44, [#44])
index 0: mit-plv#337 != #44
(add 64, [#41, mit-plv#334]) != (add 64, [#25, #41])
index 1: mit-plv#334 != #25
(mul 64, [#1, mit-plv#331]) != (mul 64, [#0, #1, #22])
[(add 64, [mit-plv#329, mit-plv#329])] != [#0, (const 20, [])]
[(add 64, [(mul 64, [#7, mit-plv#328]), (mul 64, [#7, mit-plv#328])])] != [#0, (const 20, [])]
[(add 64, [(mul 64, [(const 2, []), (add 64, [#0, mit-plv#327])]), (mul 64, [(const 2, []), (add 64, [#0, mit-plv#327])])])] != [#0, (const 20, [])]
[(add 64, [(mul 64, [(const 2, []), (add 64, [#0, (mul 64, [#0, mit-plv#326])])]), (mul 64, [(const 2, []), (add 64, [#0, (mul 64, [#0, mit-plv#326])])])])] != [#0, (const 20, [])]
[(add 64, [(mul 64, [(const 2, []), (add 64, [#0, (mul 64, [#0, (const 4, [])])])]), (mul 64, [(const 2, []), (add 64, [#0, (mul 64, [#0, (const 4, [])])])])])] != [#0, (const 20, [])]
[(add 64, [(mul 64, [(const 2, []), (add 64, [(old 64 0, []), (mul 64, [(old 64 0, []), (const 4, [])])])]), (mul 64, [(const 2, []), (add 64, [(old 64 0, []), (mul 64, [(old 64 0, []), (const 4, [])])])])])] != [(old 64 0, []), (const 20, [])]
```

The second to last line is generally the one to look at; the last line
adds a bit more detail to it.  Perhaps we should instead list out the
values of indices rather than expanding one additional level?
JasonGross added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 22, 2022
@JasonGross
Better error messages
cfe296f 
Probably if the lists are the same lengths, then we want to compare them
element-wise rather than all at once.  It's way too verbose to keep
expanding them, so we only do that when lists are not the same length.

We now get error messages such as
```
Unable to unify: [inr [378, 381, 384]] == [inr [101, 106, 108]]
Could not unify the values at index 0: [#378, #381, #384] != [#101, #106, #108]
index 0: #378 != #101
(slice 0 44, [#377]) != (slice 0 44, [#98])
index 0: #377 != #98
(add 64, [#345, #375]) != (add 64, [#57, #96])
index 0: #345 != #57
(slice 0 44, [#337]) != (slice 0 44, [#44])
index 0: #337 != #44
(add 64, [#41, #334]) != (add 64, [#25, #41])
index 1: #334 != #25
(mul 64, [#1, #331]) != (mul 64, [#0, #1, #22])
[(add 64, [#329, #329])] != [#0, (const 20, [])]
[(add 64, [(mul 64, [#7, #328]), (mul 64, [#7, #328])])] != [#0, (const 20, [])]
[(add 64, [(mul 64, [(const 2, []), (add 64, [#0, #327])]), (mul 64, [(const 2, []), (add 64, [#0, #327])])])] != [#0, (const 20, [])]
[(add 64, [(mul 64, [(const 2, []), (add 64, [#0, (mul 64, [#0, #326])])]), (mul 64, [(const 2, []), (add 64, [#0, (mul 64, [#0, #326])])])])] != [#0, (const 20, [])]
[(add 64, [(mul 64, [(const 2, []), (add 64, [#0, (mul 64, [#0, (const 4, [])])])]), (mul 64, [(const 2, []), (add 64, [#0, (mul 64, [#0, (const 4, [])])])])])] != [#0, (const 20, [])]
[(add 64, [(mul 64, [(const 2, []), (add 64, [(old 64 0, []), (mul 64, [(old 64 0, []), (const 4, [])])])]), (mul 64, [(const 2, []), (add 64, [(old 64 0, []), (mul 64, [(old 64 0, []), (const 4, [])])])])])] != [(old 64 0, []), (const 20, [])]
```

The second to last line is generally the one to look at; the last line
adds a bit more detail to it.  Perhaps we should instead list out the
values of indices rather than expanding one additional level?
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@andres-erbsen andres-erbsen

Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@JasonGross @andres-erbsen