All versions
Frama-C on GitLab

Latest News RSS Feeds

LAnnotate v0.2.4 for Frama-C 31.0 Gallium
MetAcsl v0.9 for Frama-C 31.0 Gallium
Release of Frama-C 31.0 (Gallium)
MetAcsl v0.9~beta for Frama-C 31.0~beta Gallium
Beta release of Frama-C 31.0~beta (Gallium)
Frama-Clang v0.0.18~beta for Frama-C 31.0~beta Gallium
MetAcsl v0.8 for Frama-C 30.0 Zinc
Frama-Clang v0.0.17 for Frama-C 30.0~ Zinc
Release of Frama-C 30.0 (Zinc)

More news ...

Highlights of Frama-C's capabilities

Since no single technique will ever be able to fit all software verification needs, Frama-C aims at combining program analysis technics, provided as plug-ins, to guarantee the absence of bugs in C programs.

An analysis framework fueled by formal methods

The main particularity of Frama-C is that it embeds tools based on formal methods, that are mathematical technics to reason about programs. Thus, most of the analyzers in Frama-C are sound: they never remain silent when a bug might happen.

Absence of runtime errors and beyond

Undefined behaviors in C programs can cause safety and security issues. Many tools can be used to find these runtime errors, but most of them provide heuristic bug finding that can miss bugs, whereas Frama-C is meant to guarantee that no bug can happen. Moreover, Frama-C provides a formal specification language, ACSL, which gives the opportunity not only to prove that no runtime error can happen, but also conformance to a functional specification.

Widely used, from experimental research to industry

Frama-C is largely used for teaching, experimental research, and industrial applications. It has been used successfully for certification purposes for DO-178, IEC 60880, Common Criteria EAL 6-7 … You may now want to go on to the description of Frama-C’s features or to a page with more details about its modular, extensible architecture

The Eva plug-in aims at proving the absence of runtime errors caused by C undefined behaviors, such as invalid memory accesses, reads of uninitialized memory, integer overflows, divisions by zero, dangling pointers…

Based on abstract interpretation

Eva relies on abstract interpretation to perform a sound static analysis of the entire program and capture all possible behaviors of its executions. It is thus able to report all errors that might happen — in the class of undefined behaviors supported by the analysis.

During its analysis, Eva infers many properties about the analyzed program, including an over-approximation of the possible values for each variable at each program point. The Frama-C graphical user interface can then be used to browse the analyzed code, review the list of emitted alarms, display the inferred ranges for any variable, highlight dead code, and more.

Highly configurable analysis

Although the Eva analysis is automatic, many parameters are available to finely configure its behavior, impacting its results accuracy and analysis time. More information on this plug-in and how to use it are available on the dedicated page and in the Eva user manual.

Eva overview

The WP plug-in aims at proving functional correctness of a program. However, while runtime errors can be deduced from the rules of the programming language, logic errors are related to the intention of the developer, that must be described to be verified.

Functional specification

ACSL (ANSI/ISO C Specification Language) is the language used in Frama-C to provide specifications, and in particular function contracts, that is the precondition of the function (what it requires from the input) and the postcondition (what it ensures in output), provided as annotations.

A deductive verification tool

The WP plugin of Frama-C uses (a variant of) weakest precondition calculus. Compared to the Eva plug-in, it requires more work from the user: one must provide the contracts of the functions, but also additional annotations, for example loop invariants and assertions, to guide the proof process. For each annotation, WP produces a verification condition, a formula that must hold to guarantee that the annotation is verified.

Maximizing automation

WP relies on SMT solvers (like Alt-Ergp, CVC5 or Z3) that can prove automatically up to 98% of the verification conditions on real world case studies. Furthermore, it provides interactive mechanisms to describe user-defined proof strategies or to build proof scripts when automated solvers fail to prove.

More information on this plug-in, and in particular tutorials, are available on the dedicated page

WP overview

The E-ACSL plug-in provides Runtime Annotation Checking (RAC), a lightweight formal method consisting in checking code annotations during the program execution. While static formal methods aim for guarantees that hold for any execution, RAC only provides guarantees about the particular execution it monitors. This allows RAC-based tools to be used with minimum intervention from the user.

Runtime assertion checking with the E-ACSL plug-in

E-ACSL is able to translate (Executable-)ACSL annotations into C code, so that they can be verified at runtime. E-ACSL is often used in combination with other plug-ins of Frama-C, e.g. Eva and WP. It can be used to understand why a proof with WP fails, or to monitor alarms after Eva analysis. E-ACSL builds upon the results from the other plug-ins: it does not instrument annotations that have already been proved valid by a static analyzer.

Formally correct monitoring

Translating ACSL is not simple as it may seem. The generated C code must not introduce any new bug in the code. Thus, E-ACSL relies on the RTE plug-in, on GMP integers and on a high performance shadow memory to capture all possible runtime error. Since all of this can be costly, E-ACSL optimizes these constructs when possible, this guarantees that E-ACSL has a reasonable runtime overhead.

Not all ACSL constructs can be translated into C code (for example quantifiers must be bounded), one has to restrict to the executable fragment of the language. More details can be found on the page dedicated to E-ACSL.

* The actual transformation is slightly more complex than this illustration.

E-ACSL overview