-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4
docs: register 2 new mapping-slot axioms in AXIOMS.md #1672
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.
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
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ def expected_snippets() -> dict[str, list[str]]: | |
| return { | ||
| "AXIOMS": [ | ||
| "### 1. `keccak256_first_4_bytes`", | ||
| "- Active axioms: 1", | ||
| "- Active axioms: 3", | ||
| ], | ||
| "COMPILER_PROOFS_README": [ | ||
| "`Compiler.Proofs.IRGeneration.Contract.compile_preserves_semantics`", | ||
|
|
@@ -57,14 +57,14 @@ def expected_snippets() -> dict[str, list[str]]: | |
| "Layer 2: CompilationModel → IR [GENERIC WHOLE-CONTRACT THEOREM]", | ||
| "Layer 2 now has a generic whole-contract theorem for the explicit supported fragment.", | ||
| "its function-level closure now runs by theorem rather than axiom", | ||
| "There is currently 1 documented Lean axiom in total: the selector axiom.", | ||
| "There are currently 3 documented Lean axioms in total: the selector axiom and 2 mapping-slot range axioms.", | ||
| "Layer 3 keeps its remaining dispatch bridge as an explicit theorem hypothesis rather than a Lean axiom.", | ||
| ], | ||
| "TRUST_ASSUMPTIONS": [ | ||
| "Layer 2: SUPPORTED-FRAGMENT GENERIC THEOREM — CompilationModel → IR", | ||
| "A generic whole-contract theorem is proved for the current supported `CompilationModel` fragment.", | ||
| "former generic body-simulation axiom has been eliminated", | ||
| "it now has 1 documented Lean axiom", | ||
| "it now has 3 documented Lean axioms", | ||
| "explicit theorem hypothesis rather than a Lean axiom", | ||
| ], | ||
| "DOCS_SITE_COMPILER": [ | ||
|
|
@@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ def expected_snippets() -> dict[str, list[str]]: | |
| ], | ||
| "LLMS": [ | ||
| "generic whole-contract CompilationModel -> IR theorem for the supported fragment", | ||
| "1 documented Lean axiom", | ||
| "3 documented Lean axioms", | ||
| ], | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
|
|
@@ -127,14 +127,12 @@ def forbidden_snippets() -> dict[str, list[str]]: | |
| "depends on 2 documented axioms", | ||
| "documented bridge axiom", | ||
| "1 generic non-core Layer 2 axiom", | ||
| "There are currently 3 documented Lean axioms in total", | ||
| "There are currently 4 documented Lean axioms in total", | ||
| ], | ||
|
Comment on lines
129
to
131
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The ROOT_README forbidden-snippet list no longer blocks the old sentence ( Useful? React with 👍 / 👎. |
||
| "TRUST_ASSUMPTIONS": [ | ||
| "FULLY VERIFIED — CompilationModel → IR", | ||
| "All three layers are proven in Lean", | ||
| "2 documented sub-axioms for generic body simulation and the `execIRFunctionFuel`/`execIRFunction` bridge", | ||
| "3 documented Lean axioms", | ||
| "4 documented Lean axioms", | ||
|
Comment on lines
132
to
136
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎. |
||
| "1 documented bridge axiom", | ||
| "2 documented axioms in [AXIOMS.md](AXIOMS.md): 1 selector axiom and 1 generic non-core Layer 2 axiom", | ||
|
|
||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This explanation says overflow is only “astronomically unlikely” because offsets are usually small, but the documented axiom is universally quantified over all
wordOffset : Natwith no bound. For sufficiently large offsets the inequality is false, so this text understates the strength/risk of the assumption and can mislead trust reviews unless it explicitly documents the missing bound.Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.