Field and predicate specific FVFs#649
Merged
Merged
Conversation
…riggering much less quadratic)
Contributor
|
@marcoeilers does this lead to any noticeable speed-up in our benchmarks? PS: I can also test it on SCION if you need more benchmarking data |
Contributor
|
Did a few extra tests with SCION packages. In one instance (package |
jcp19
approved these changes
Jan 12, 2023
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Making FVF sorts (and the predicate equivalent) field-specific. The point is to avoid triggering the FVF extensionality axioms on pairs of FVFs of different fields (or predicates), which is never useful, and looks potentially expensive.
Draft, still testing performance implications.