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: virgile.prevosto at (Virgile Prevosto)
  • Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 15:30:57 +0200
  • In-reply-to: <1274361797.2116.11.camel@iti27>
  • References: <> <> <1274361797.2116.11.camel@iti27>

Le jeu. 20 mai 2010 15:23:17 CEST,
Boris Hollas <hollas at> a ?crit :

> > 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.

No, jessie always generates a proof obligation corresponding to the
lemma. However, no automated prover will be able to discharge it
(otherwise, they would prove the PO from the ensures clause directly).
Thus, some additional work is needed (e.g. by using the coq output of

E tutto per oggi, a la prossima volta.