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: Claude.Marche at (Claude Marche)
  • Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 15:36:38 +0200
  • In-reply-to: <1274361797.2116.11.camel@iti27>
  • References: <> <> <1274361797.2116.11.camel@iti27>

Boris Hollas wrote:
> 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? 
It generates a proof obligation for it, of course. If some automatic 
provers proves it you are happy,
if not and if you are brave, you can use a proof assistant (and if you 
are not brave enough, try to convince yourself that it is true anyway)
> 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.
Quite a philosophical question, indeed ;-)

Let me remind the main "theorem" behind the Jessie/Why plugin: if all 
the proof obligations are valid formulas, then the code satisfies its 
ACSL annotations.

It does not tell you anything about who is going to guarantee that they 
are valid!

- Claude

Claude March?                          | tel: +33 1 72 92 59 69           
INRIA Saclay - ?le-de-France           | mobile: +33 6 33 14 57 93 
Parc Orsay Universit?                  | fax: +33 1 74 85 42 29   
4, rue Jacques Monod - B?timent N      |
F-91893 ORSAY Cedex                    |