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] Array problem - Jessie plugin

  • Subject: [Frama-c-discuss] Array problem - Jessie plugin
  • From: Claude.Marche at inria.fr (Claude Marche)
  • Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 15:12:07 +0200
  • In-reply-to: <CACfSD7YdmtPSckQvcFh=QUTcKnq5bs8TWevwFy2Z_GohJQvgsw@mail.gmail.com>
  • References: <CACfSD7YdmtPSckQvcFh=QUTcKnq5bs8TWevwFy2Z_GohJQvgsw@mail.gmail.com>
Hi,

This is the same situation as your example with a struct. The workaround
is to introduce a ghost variable.

There is no need to introduce ghost variables when you have two or more
array assignments because Jessie does a special treatment of parallel
assignments. However, the current discussion make me think that every
assignments should be treated as parallel assignments are treated. I may
consider adding this in the next release.

- Claude

On 10/21/2013 02:03 PM, Luciana Burgareli wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> This is a very simple example, but it was not proved.
> 
> If we slightly modify the code and we add an assignment to the Ang2[1]
> (and the related assigns and ensures clauses), both the ensures clauses
> are proved.
> 
> Why is not the attached example proved?
> 
> How to solve this problem?
> 
> We are using the Jessie Plugin, Why3 Verification Platform 0.81,
> Fluorine-20130601 and the provers Alt-Ergo 0.95.2, CVC3 2.4.1, Gappa
> 1.0.0 and Z3 4.3.2.
> 
> 
> Luciana
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Frama-c-discuss mailing list
> Frama-c-discuss at lists.gforge.inria.fr
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/frama-c-discuss
>