Frama-C-discuss mailing list archives

This page gathers the archives of the old Frama-C-discuss archives, that was hosted by Inria's gforge before its demise at the end of 2020. To search for mails newer than September 2020, please visit the page of the new mailing list on Renater.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Frama-c-discuss] Res: Feature or bug?

> Now, why is this false hypothesis part of the context? Because all 
> previous preconditions and postconditions are assumed to be true when 
> proving subsequent properties. In other words, it behaves as if you had 
> written:
> void bar()
> {
>      //@ assert 0 <= -1;
>      foo(-2);
> }

But why that behaviour exists? There is some practical aspect that motivates this "inclusion" of the previous ensures clauses (with the proper variables substituted) in the next statements?

There are some Jessie parameter which prevents that kind of "inclusion"?

Jo?o Paulo Carvalho.

Veja quais s?o os assuntos do momento no Yahoo! +Buscados
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...