Synchronise goto-cc command-line options to re-enable Windows regression tests

[tautschnig]

object-bits was not supported by all of goto-cc's command-line front-end
variants. While at it, also make other options consistently available.

• Each commit message has a non-empty body, explaining why the change was made.
• n/a Methods or procedures I have added are documented, following the guidelines provided in CODING_STANDARD.md.
• n/a The feature or user visible behaviour I have added or modified has been documented in the User Guide in doc/cprover-manual/
• Regression or unit tests are included, or existing tests cover the modified code (in this case I have detailed which ones those are in the commit message).
• n/a My commit message includes data points confirming performance improvements (if claimed).
• My PR is restricted to a single feature or bugfix.
• n/a White-space or formatting changes outside the feature-related changed lines are in commits of their own.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #5572 (774abc1) into develop (16ed35a) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 0.00%.

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           develop    #5572   +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage    69.31%   69.31%           
========================================
  Files         1241     1241           
  Lines       100407   100407           
========================================
  Hits         69596    69596           
  Misses       30811    30811           

Flag	Coverage Δ
cproversmt2	43.07% <ø> (ø)
regression	66.21% <0.00%> (ø)
unit	32.27% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/goto-cc/armcc_cmdline.cpp	26.92% <ø> (ø)
src/goto-cc/bcc_cmdline.cpp	0.00% <ø> (ø)
src/goto-cc/ms_cl_cmdline.cpp	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/goto-cc/ms_link_cmdline.cpp	0.00% <ø> (ø)

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 16ed35a...774abc1. Read the comment docs.

[peterschrammel]

I don't quite understand/remember why object-bits is required at all here. It should only have an influence on symbolic execution, but not appear in a goto-program. Going forward this should probably be cleaned up.

[kroening]

Agreed, goto-cc (or goto-gcc or goto-cl) should not have analysis options.

[tautschnig]

@peterschrammel said:

I don't quite understand/remember why object-bits is required at all here. It should only have an influence on symbolic execution, but not appear in a goto-program. Going forward this should probably be cleaned up.

@kroening said:

Agreed, goto-cc (or goto-gcc or goto-cl) should not have analysis options.

As of 531b856 (#5210) the C front-end needs to determine the value of __CPROVER_max_malloc_size based on this configuration information. Would be unnecessary with #1086, but that's also quite far off.

[kroening]

__CPROVER_max_malloc_size can just as well be set by the analyser.

[martin-cs]

In principle, yes, but like others I have concerns about --object-bits.

[tautschnig]

__CPROVER_max_malloc_size can just as well be set by the analyser.

@kroening Any suggestions of what would be the cleanest way to do so? We could certainly generate an assignment in goto_symext::initialize_entry_point_state, but that does feel like a hack.

Edit: another option would be to introduce a function __CPROVER_max_malloc_size() and have goto-symex give special treatment to the function call. That, however, would require some awareness of return-value removal.

[tautschnig]

Closing in favour of #7858.