Fun! Proved correct via SMT, but with a bug that plain unit tests with published test vector would have caught:https://github.com/GaloisInc/cryptol/issues/442 …
-
-
Replying to @BRIAN_____
Incorrect. Notice the proof failed and even "produced counterexamples for various values of t > 64". Invalid code? No proof for you.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like
Replying to @MDTom
Right. That's really what I'm hoping people notice from this. When we see a proof, we have to understand what is being proved & what's not.
0 replies
1 retweet
2 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.