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] proving stack axioms with jessie
- Subject: [Frama-c-discuss] proving stack axioms with jessie
- From: virgile.prevosto at cea.fr (Virgile Prevosto)
- Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 17:59:55 +0200
- In-reply-to: <42050C88D59E144CA358159FF0E6018B090652@TITAN.first.fraunhofer.de>
- References: <42050C88D59E144CA358159FF0E6018B090652@TITAN.first.fraunhofer.de>
Le mar. 17 ao?t 2010 17:06:02 CEST, "Kerstin Hartig" <kerstin.hartig at first.fraunhofer.de> a ?crit : > > This problem only ocurs with the Simplify prover right now. > So maybe it is just a prover problem? And Simplify is not safe to use? I have not taken the time to dig much further, but if you enable debug mode in GWhy (in the Proof menu), you can see on the terminal that Simplify rightly answers Invalid... ... but in that case, it outputs a counter-example (i.e. a model of the negation of the formula), which of course contains occurences of the Valid predicate. My guess is that the regexp used by Why to check Simplify's answer needs to be refined. In the mean time, renaming Valid to something else might help ;-) -- E tutto per oggi, a la prossima volta. Virgile
- References:
- [Frama-c-discuss] proving stack axioms with jessie
- From: kerstin.hartig at first.fraunhofer.de (Kerstin Hartig)
- [Frama-c-discuss] proving stack axioms with jessie
- Prev by Date: [Frama-c-discuss] proving stack axioms with jessie
- Next by Date: [Frama-c-discuss] about checking xen by frama-c
- Previous by thread: [Frama-c-discuss] proving stack axioms with jessie
- Next by thread: [Frama-c-discuss] Functions in Predicates
- Index(es):