MxDHRepChange.v is broken in Coq 8.4 #95
Assignees
Comments
|
I fixed this a day or two ago |
dderjoel
added a commit
to dderjoel/fiat-crypto
that referenced
this issue
Mar 22, 2022
Unable to unify: [inr [351, 349, 350]] == [inr [103, 108, 110]] Could not unify the values at index 0: [mit-plv#351, mit-plv#349, mit-plv#350] != [mit-plv#103, mit-plv#108, mit-plv#110] index 0: mit-plv#351 != mit-plv#103 (slice 0 44, [mit-plv#345]) != (slice 0 44, [mit-plv#100]) index 0: mit-plv#345 != mit-plv#100 (add 64, [mit-plv#58, mit-plv#95, mit-plv#343]) != (add 64, [mit-plv#58, mit-plv#98]) (add 64, [mit-plv#95, mit-plv#343]) != (add 64, [mit-plv#98]) (add 64, [mit-plv#95, (mul 64, [mit-plv#95, mit-plv#331])]) != (add 64, [(mul 64, [#3, mit-plv#95])]) (add 64, [mit-plv#95, (mul 64, [mit-plv#95, (const 4, [])])]) != (add 64, [(mul 64, [#3, mit-plv#95])]) (add 64, [(or 64, [mit-plv#91, mit-plv#93]), (mul 64, [(or 64, [mit-plv#91, mit-plv#93]), (const 4, [])])]) != (add 64, [(mul 64, [(const 5, []), (or 64, [mit-plv#91, mit-plv#93])])])
JasonGross
pushed a commit
to dderjoel/fiat-crypto
that referenced
this issue
Mar 22, 2022
Unable to unify: [inr [351, 349, 350]] == [inr [103, 108, 110]] Could not unify the values at index 0: [mit-plv#351, mit-plv#349, mit-plv#350] != [mit-plv#103, mit-plv#108, mit-plv#110] index 0: mit-plv#351 != mit-plv#103 (slice 0 44, [mit-plv#345]) != (slice 0 44, [mit-plv#100]) index 0: mit-plv#345 != mit-plv#100 (add 64, [mit-plv#58, mit-plv#95, mit-plv#343]) != (add 64, [mit-plv#58, mit-plv#98]) (add 64, [mit-plv#95, mit-plv#343]) != (add 64, [mit-plv#98]) (add 64, [mit-plv#95, (mul 64, [mit-plv#95, mit-plv#331])]) != (add 64, [(mul 64, [#3, mit-plv#95])]) (add 64, [mit-plv#95, (mul 64, [mit-plv#95, (const 4, [])])]) != (add 64, [(mul 64, [#3, mit-plv#95])]) (add 64, [(or 64, [mit-plv#91, mit-plv#93]), (mul 64, [(or 64, [mit-plv#91, mit-plv#93]), (const 4, [])])]) != (add 64, [(mul 64, [(const 5, []), (or 64, [mit-plv#91, mit-plv#93])])])
JasonGross
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Mar 23, 2022
Unable to unify: [inr [351, 349, 350]] == [inr [103, 108, 110]] Could not unify the values at index 0: [#351, #349, #350] != [#103, #108, #110] index 0: #351 != #103 (slice 0 44, [#345]) != (slice 0 44, [#100]) index 0: #345 != #100 (add 64, [#58, #95, #343]) != (add 64, [#58, #98]) (add 64, [#95, #343]) != (add 64, [#98]) (add 64, [#95, (mul 64, [#95, #331])]) != (add 64, [(mul 64, [#3, #95])]) (add 64, [#95, (mul 64, [#95, (const 4, [])])]) != (add 64, [(mul 64, [#3, #95])]) (add 64, [(or 64, [#91, #93]), (mul 64, [(or 64, [#91, #93]), (const 4, [])])]) != (add 64, [(mul 64, [(const 5, []), (or 64, [#91, #93])])])
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
The
f_equivtactic behaves differently in Coq 8.4 and Coq 8.5/8.6. We should either roll our own, or stop using it.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: