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] Why 2.27 released

  • Subject: [Frama-c-discuss] Why 2.27 released
  • From: Claude.Marche at inria.fr (Claude Marche)
  • Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 15:00:44 +0200
  • In-reply-to: <395817668.6335.1287058251768.JavaMail.root@zmbs1.inria.fr>
  • References: <4CB6C304.7@inria.fr> <395817668.6335.1287058251768.JavaMail.root@zmbs1.inria.fr>
On 10/14/2010 02:10 PM, Boris Hollas wrote:
> Two weeks ago, I posted the message "Binary search now works with
> Alt-Ergo 0.92". However, that same binary search function doesn't verify
> with why 2.27, as I've just tested. Both alt-ergo and CVC3 can't prove
> two crucial loop invariants. Was that function spuriously verified with
> why 2.26?
>    
Hi Boris,

Indeed I have the same problem, but strangely the behavior is not the 
same for the Java and the C source file.
Could you send me the exact C source your are using for your own test ?

It seems that there is some change between Alt-Ergo 0.91 and 0.92.1 that 
might be causing this. (I don't
know what would happen with 0.92, I never used it). But I'd like to know 
if there is some difference between
Why 2.26 and Why 2.27 that could explain the problem too.

By the way, for other provers Simplify, Z3 and CVC3, everything 
continues to be proved 100%, so I suspect Alt-Ergo 0.92.1 is the first 
source of regression.

- 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      | http://www.lri.fr/~marche/
F-91893 ORSAY Cedex                    |