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] With Why version 2.23, Jessie binary_search example fails. Why?

  • Subject: [Frama-c-discuss] With Why version 2.23, Jessie binary_search example fails. Why?
  • From: dwheeler at dwheeler.com (David A. Wheeler)
  • Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 12:26:33 -0500 (EST)
  • In-reply-to: <20100104171705.27d89153@is010235>
  • References: <E1NRHCE-0007aW-Gi@fenris.runbox.com> <20100104111750.1b613521@is010235> <E1NRpOA-0001r7-Sy@garm.runbox.com> <20100104171705.27d89153@is010235>
Virgile Prevosto:
> You're right, the location of the error is completely wrong and we
> have to investigate a bit further. The error message is correct,
> though: you can only have one loop annotation per loop, and the two
> one-line comments are seen as two distinct annotations. The only way to
> have multi-line annotations is to use the /*@ ... */ syntax.

Okay, that makes sense.  Personally, I think //@ without intervening code
should be merged and treated as a single comment.
There's an old bug saying the same thing:
  http://bts.frama-c.com/view.php?id=79
A non-misleading error message would be better than what happens now,
but "doing the right thing" would be even better :-).

I submitted the binary_search documentation bug here:
  http://bts.frama-c.com/view.php?id=365

I believe that binary_search's requirements changed because
termination proofs are now required by default:
  http://bts.frama-c.com/view.php?id=103

--- David A. Wheeler