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] \at in ACSL assertions

  • Subject: [Frama-c-discuss] \at in ACSL assertions
  • From: anne.pacalet at (Anne Pacalet)
  • Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 17:18:20 +0100
  • In-reply-to: <1289837441.1984.78.camel@guillaume-laptop>
  • References: <> <20101115145125.5bad24be@is010235> <> <> <1289832872.1984.60.camel@guillaume-laptop> <> <1289836319.1984.68.camel@guillaume-laptop> <> <1289837441.1984.78.camel@guillaume-laptop>

Le 15/11/2010 17:10, Guillaume Melquiond a ?crit :
> As a matter of fact, that's exactly the current ACSL interpretation. The
> annotation above is syntactic sugar for
> Here42:
> //@ assert \at(x,Here42)>  \at(y,Here42);
> and it precisely states that for any program state at label Here42, the
> value of variable x in that state is greater than the value of variable
> y in that state.

Yes : but what I tried to say is that x and y values are considered
both to be in the same state.

When you said :
 > It is not obvious to me that \at(v,l) is the value of variable v
 > the last time the program reached label l. It could also be
 > any value of v any time the program reached l.

it seemed to me that you proposed to merge several states...