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] Unable to prove the example code in ACSL documentation

Well, this is known issue on modularity of specifications and proofs.
A general method would be to have two specifications for module B. Typically, you can have a #define around the static variable ?X? to make it ?static? in concrete code, but public in ?proof? header.

The more general solution is based on refinement:
one specification for B is concrete and is used for proving properties inside B : functions assigns the (private) static variables in B.
The second specification for B is abstract, and is used for asserting Pre-Post for other modules to call functions in B.
In this second spec, functions in B assign dummy (ghost) public variables that model the internal state of all variables in B.
What is missing in this methodology is a way to make both specifications consistent with each other.

L.