Re: [PATCH 0/5] Conflict Counterexample Generation

Hey Akim,

Unfortunately in your latest rebase, we lost all the commit messages, so
> I'm currently writing them.

Sorry for the inconvenience. If you're talking about the bug fix commits, a
lot of them were moving code around, which I thought was kind of ugly to
have in a repo. Also, after the heavy rebasing, I wasn't sure if scratched
implementations from earlier versions still worked.


> I also had to fix some conflicts with complain.[ch] (what did you rebase
> against?).

I forked sometime in October maybe? There's been a warning option added in
the meantime. I couldn't pull from master as the merge commit would've made
it a lot harder to rebase.

The changes in bootstrap.cfg are also lacking, so I'm adding them.  There
> are many warnings to address (e.g., "int foo()" is not a valid signature in
> C, you need "int foo(void)", or global/local name conflicts).
>
I wasn't getting warnings during my build, I should have tested on more
than MacOS.

I also need to make sure the test suite passes on the CI, which requires
> adjust the test cases, or maybe disabling some of them.  I'm not done yet.
> I've pushed the current state of the branch as
> https://github.com/akimd/bison/tree/cex.
>
So I mentioned in the cover letter that I didn't want to update these until
we had decided where cex output goes. Right now none of the tests contain
their expected results. IIRC the effects of cex are non-deterministic on
the existing.at tests (there's a lot of conflicts without unifying
examples), so those tests should probably just not use it.