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] Small function with Shifting
- Subject: [Frama-c-discuss] Small function with Shifting
- From: hollas at informatik.htw-dresden.de (Boris Hollas)
- Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 15:23:17 +0200
- In-reply-to: <4BF5209A.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <4BF51BEB.email@example.com> <4BF5209A.firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Thu, 2010-05-20 at 13:44 +0200, Claude Marche wrote: > The lemma itself is not proved of course, you have to convince yourself > of its truth by other means: from human review to use of a proof assistant. Does that mean that Jessie/why doesn't prove a user supplied lemma? The ACSL reference is unclear on this, it states "Of course, a complete verification of an ACSL specification has to provide a proof for each lemma." It's unclear to me who has to provide this proof.